A P R I L 2 0 0 5 , V O L U M E 7 , N U M B E R 1

ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

www.thc.state.tx.us

Ship Went Down in 1875 Fire

City of Waco Located inGalveston Bayby Andy HallTHC Archeological Steward

Marine stewards with the Texas Historical Commission (THC) archeological

stewardship network are working to uncover the story of one of the state’s

worst maritime disasters.

On the night of November 8–9, 1875, the Mallory Line steamer City of Wacocaught fire — cause unknown — and burned at her anchorage off Galveston. A late

autumn storm was raging, blowing a full gale, and although the crews of a dozen or

more ships could see the disaster unfolding only a short distance away, they could do

nothing in the teeth of the wind and sea. Nor, in an age before wireless, could they sum-

mon help from the nearby city. They could only watch, and listen to voices in the dark-

ness crying for help as passengers and crew from the blazing ship drifted by on wreckage

and makeshift rafts. Fifty-six people were aboard the City of Waco that night. None of

them survived.1

Few marine disasters on the Texas coast have taken so many lives, but the story

of the City of Waco’s demise is almost unknown today. It is mentioned only in passing in

a few specialized histories of the region, like Richard Francaviglia’s From Sail to Steam:Four Centuries of Texas Maritime History, 1500–1900, and most authors overlook it

IN THIS ISSUE

CITY OF WACO LOCATED IN

GALVESTON BAY 1

CURRENT RESEARCH 3

THE LONG-NEGLECTED SITE

OF THE FIRST CAPITAL OF

COLONIAL TEXAS:

INVESTIGATIONS AT SAN FELIPE

DE AUSTIN (41AU2), AUSTIN

COUNTY, TEXAS 3

TESTING AT 41AS5 ON SWAN

LAKE, CENTRAL TEXAS COAST:

A SUMMARY OF THE HUMAN-

ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 12

DATA RECOVERY AT SITE

41HM51, HAMILTON

COUNTY, TEXAS 18

CURRENT

NEWS AND EVENTS 23

THC ONLINE ATLASES

GET FACELIFT 23

LA BELLE BOOK PUBLISHED BY

TEXAS A&M PRESS 24

MARINE ARCHEOLOGY 25

HAVE WETSUIT, WILL TRAVEL 25

REGIONAL AND

STEWARD NEWS 26

REGIONAL

ARCHEOLOGY REPORTS 26

THE ORIGINAL

LOCKHART BAR-B-Q PLACE 32

LOOKING AHEAD 33

TAM 2005 34

TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION

Antonio Jacobsen’s painting of the City of Waco, which provided valuable clues in identifying thewreck off Galveston. Yellowed and stained varnish partially obscures the detail of the ship. CourtesyMariners’ Museum, Newport News, Virginia.

Continues on page 2

2 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

entirely.2 The wreck itself was marked as a hazard to naviga-

tion until it was finally blasted with dynamite in February

1900 to clear the obstruction. The name City of Waco was

erased from the charts, and with it all memory of the event.

Surveys reveal a wreck, but is it the City of Waco?In 2003 a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey noted a large

wreck about a mile off the end of the south jetty at the

entrance to Galveston Bay. It was tentatively identified as the

dredge Galveston, which sank on the north jetty in 1943.

Realizing that the position of this wreck was far from

where the Galveston was known to have sunk, State Marine

Archeologist Steve Hoyt undertook research to identify the

vessel. Examining copies of historic charts in the THC collec-

tion, he quickly realized that the wreck lies in exactly the

same position as a wreck buoy shown on the 1867 “Galveston

Entrance, Texas” chart, with aids to navigation corrected to

1883. Added to the map for the 1883 corrections, the wreck

buoy is actually outside the map border, and it is clearly

labeled “City of Waco.”

Marine Steward Gary McKee searched historical

records for information about the long-forgotten City of Waco,and at Hoyt’s request the environmental and engineering

consulting firm PBS&J conducted a sonar and magnetometer

survey of the site.

The PBS&J sonar images reveal in great detail the

remains of an iron-hulled ship protruding from the muddy

sea floor (see image below). The forward end of the ship is

largely intact, with upright hull plating, deck beams, and

machinery all clearly visible.

Divers contribute the crucial evidenceTo confirm the ship’s identity, Hoyt enlisted the help of

Marine Steward Andy Hall, who is also president of the

Southwest Underwater Archaeological Society (SUAS), a vol-

unteer group that works closely with the THC to document

wrecks in Texas. Hall and other members of the SUAS made

the first dives on the site in late November 2003. Diving

conditions proved to be extremely difficult, however. Visibility

was quite poor, and because of a strong current the divers

could not hold their positions.

Hall, Hoyt, and SUAS members were able to dive

successfully in the fall of 2004 and confirmed that a large

part of the wreck remained intact. SUAS team members

located several distinctive features. While none of these

features directly identified the wreck as the City of Waco,all were consistent with that identification. Of special note

were two pairs of large cylindrical objects, roughly 16 feet in

length and three feet in diameter. They appear to be boilers

and are matched, port and starboard. Although these objects

do not correspond to the dimensions of the ship’s main (i.e.,

propulsion) boilers as described in contemporary accounts,

they could be auxiliary boilers or holding tanks for fresh

water or other liquids.

Large elements of the wreck remain relatively intact.

Long continuous segments of hull plating are exposed,

extending three to four feet above the bottom. Substantial

amounts of deck framing are exposed forward, suggesting that

part of the ship is settled 20 feet or more into the bottom.

Within the margins of the hull, a significant jumble of broken

hull plate, piping, and other general wreckage was observed

— all of which are consistent with the fire that destroyed the

City of Waco and the demolition work done 25 years later.

Because the features observed by divers and seen in

the sonar images are consistent with known construction

details of the vessel, and because the wreck lies at the position

indicated in the 1883 map, we are confident that it is indeed

the City of Waco.

The SUAS plans more dives for 2005 and hopes to

complete remote-sensing projects that will further define the

wreck site. Texas A&M University at Galveston has expressed

interest in performing an additional magnetometer survey,

which should help locate targets outside the hull that may

directly relate to the vessel — anchors, for example, or other

ship structure ripped away from the main body during the

demolition work of 1900. The SUAS would also like to work

with other groups or sponsors to perform comprehensive,

multibeam sonar imaging to establish a true three-dimensional

reconstruction of the wreck site as it is today.

Both the THC and the SUAS intend to pursue investi-

gations of the City of Waco for several years. Although it may

be impossible to determine what caused the disaster, all those

Sidescan sonar image of the wreck by PBS&J. Much of the wreck remains intact, with hull plating and deck beams clearly visible. Courtesy PBS&J.

CITY OF WACO • 3

involved in the project hope their efforts will at least call

attention to a forgotten tragedy in Texas history.

Endnotes1. Galveston News, 10 November 1875, 11 November 1875, 12 November

1875, 16 November 1875, 18 November 1875; New York Times, 14

November 1875.

2. Charles Waldo Hayes’ Galveston: History of the Island and the City,

written just a few years after the disaster but not published for nearly a

century, gives a fairly complete account of the event, but later writers have

either mentioned it only in passing or overlooked it altogether. David

McComb’s Galveston: A History, generally acknowledged as the best

general work on the history of the community, does not mention it at

all, nor does Earle Young’s Galveston and the Great West, an otherwise

meticulous account of Galveston’s emergence as a port in the late-19th

century. Francaviglia’s From Sail to Steam mentions the disaster (p. 234)

but ignores the presence of the ship’s deck cargo of kerosene, a major

point of discussion and controversy in the aftermath of the ship’s loss.

Keith Guthrie, in his Texas Forgotten Ports series, mentions the presence

of oil (Vol. II, p. 222) but, like other authors, makes no acknowledgment

of the public debate that followed in the wake of the disaster. Guthrie

incorrectly claims the City of Waco carried 2,000 cases of oil; by almost

all contemporary accounts, the number was 200.

ReferencesFrancaviglia, Richard

1998 From Sail to Steam: Four Centuries of Texas Maritime History,1500–1900. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Guthrie, Keith

1988 Texas Forgotten Ports, Vol. II. Eakin Press, Austin.

Hayes, Charles Waldo

1974 Galveston: History of the Island and the City. Jenkins Garrett

Press, Austin.

McComb, David

1986 Galveston: A History. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Young, Earle

1997 Galveston and the Great West. Texas A&M University Press,

College Station.

In 1823 the Mexican government granted Stephen F. Austin

permission to bring 300 settlers to form the first Anglo colony

in Hispanic Texas. Site 41AU2 consists of the 148-acre town

site that was established in 1824 by Empresario Stephen F.

Austin to serve as the headquarters and capital of his colony.

San Felipe de Austin was the political, social, and economic

center of Austin’s Colony, and at its peak the town consisted

of more than 45 buildings and 600 residents with commerce

second only to San Antonio. In 1836, during the War for

Texas Independence, the Anglo settlers completely burned the

town of San Felipe de Austin to prevent its occupation by

Mexican troops. The Texan forces also successfully defended

the river crossing at San Felipe de Austin, thereby forcing the

Mexican troops to travel downstream to cross the river at

Fort Bend. After 1836 San Felipe was only partially resettled.

The area has subsequently been used primarily for pasture;

therefore much of the charred and buried remains of the

historic town remain virtually intact.

San Felipe de Austin is listed as a State Archeological

Landmark and has been determined eligible for inclusion in

the National Register of Historic Places. It is as historically

important as the sites of Goliad, San Jacinto, the Alamo, and

Washington-on-the-Brazos, yet little has been done to study or

preserve this significant town site. The San Felipe de Austin

Archeology Project is the first concerted effort to scientifically

study and preserve the historic remains of San Felipe de Austin.

C U R R E N T R E S E A R C H

The Long-Neglected Site of the First Capital of Colonial Texas: Investigations at San Felipe de Austin (41AU2),Austin County, Texasby Marianne Marek

4 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

Only a small portion (approximately 15 acres) of site

41AU2 is owned by Texas Parks and Wildlife. The remaining

90 percent is owned by private individuals. The San Felipe de

Austin Project is the first historical and archeological investi-

gation ever conducted on the privately owned portions of

site 41AU2. One of the goals of the project is to protect this

important archeological site through public education and the

development of historic tourism in the area. The site is severely

endangered by erosion, and significant portions of it have

already been lost. Therefore, the archeological work includes

excavating endangered areas before they are destroyed.

The project is sponsored by a consortium of six local

organizations: the City of San Felipe, the Stephen F. Austin

Park Association, Austin County, the Austin County Historical

Commission, the Fort Bend Museum Association, and the

Sealy Chamber of Commerce. It is partially funded by grants

from the Texas Historical Commission (THC) Texas Preserva-

tion Trust Fund and the Summerlee Foundation. Additional

funding has been provided by private donors and contributions

from the City of Sealy, the City of San Felipe, the Bellville

Economic Development Corporation, and the Austin County

Historical Commission. Archeological excavations are con-

ducted primarily by volunteers under the direction of principal

investigator Marianne Marek and one or two archeological

assistants. Project volunteers include THC archeological stew-

ards; members of the Houston, Fort Bend, and Brazosport

archeological societies; members of the Texas Archeological

Society; archeology students; members of several historical

societies; and local residents with an interest in the history of

the area. Volunteers travel from as far as Austin and College

Station to participate in the project.

A Brief History of San Felipe de AustinIn an attempt to reestablish his family’s fortune, Moses Austin

petitioned the Spanish government and in 1820 received

permission to settle 300 families as the first Anglo colony

in Texas. Shortly after his return from Spanish Texas, Moses

Austin contracted pneumonia and died. The responsibility

for the colony passed to his son, Stephen F. Austin, who

immediately began to recruit Anglo colonists from the adjoin-

ing United States (Barker 1926:23–28).

In 1821 Mexico gained independence from Spain,

and the new provisional Mexican government refused to

recognize Austin’s grant. Although settlers began arriving in

Texas as early as 1821, official permission to establish the

colony was delayed by Mexican politics until 1823 (Moore

1929:9). Austin’s colony encompassed all the land bounded

by the San Jacinto River on the east, the Lavaca River on the

west, the Gulf of Mexico on the south, and the Old Spanish

Trail on the north (Figure 1).

After finally acquiring permission to establish the

colony, Stephen F. Austin and the Baron de Bastrop selected a

location for the colony headquarters on the west bank of the

Brazos River near the Atascosito Road Crossing (Figure 1).

The Mexican governor of the area named the town San Felipe

de Austin (Moore 1929:15). In 1824 surveyor Seth Ingram

laid out the town on the Mexican model of a grid of avenues

and streets, dominated by five public areas: Commerce Square,

Constitution Square, Military Square, Campo Santo (the

cemetery), and the Hospicio (house of charity), as shown in

Figure 2 (Cantrell 1999:149; Moore 1929:18–19).

The new town was prosperous. It was linked to the

rest of the colony by eight roads extending in all directions

(Moore 1929:41–43), and cotton plantations filled the sur-

rounding countryside. One of the first settlers had established

a ferry at the Brazos River crossing (Moore 1929:18), and

steamboats docked at a landing on the edge of Commerce

Square. By 1827 businesses in colonial San Felipe de Austin

included taverns, a hotel, several stores, a newspaper office,

and a blacksmith (Smithwick 1900:40). A brickyard was

established by 1830 (Barker 1918:78–79), and a grist and

lumber mill were constructed a few miles north of town

(Kuykendall 1903:53; Smithwick 1900:52). In 1834 a traveler

noted two taverns, four or five stores, and a courthouse

(Parker 1835:174–175). By 1835 a few brick houses had been

constructed (Castañeda 1925:199). By February of 1836 the

town consisted of approximately 45 buildings with a popula-

tion of approximately 600 people (Brister 1999:353). Three

steamboats made trips up the Brazos during periods of high

Figure 1. Stephen F. Austin’s colony.

CURRENT RESEARCH / SITE 41AU2 • 5

Figure 2. Plat of San Felipe de Austin, 1823.

6 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

water (Castañeda 1925:204; Moore 1929:26–28). San Felipe

de Austin was second only to San Antonio in commercial

trade (Haskew 1969:30).

Activities in San Felipe de Austin during the colonial

era (1824–1836) proved to be very significant to the course

of Texas history. The town hall was the scene of meetings of

the ayuntamiento; the Conventions of 1832 and 1833; and

the Consultation of 1835. It also served as the seat of the

provisional government of Texas in early 1836. It was only

after Mexican forces entered Texas in an effort to crush

the rebellion that the government was moved upriver to

Washington-on-the-Brazos.

During the War for Texas Independence, the Texan

army retreated from Gonzales to San Felipe de Austin following

the fall of the Alamo in the spring of 1836. Sam Houston’s

Texan forces camped in San Felipe de Austin on March 26

before continuing north to Groce’s Plantation. Houston left

a rear guard of about 100 men at San Felipe de Austin with

orders to burn the town and defend the crossing if the

Mexicans were sighted. Burning the town would prevent the

Mexicans from camping comfortably and seizing the colonists’

property (King 1981:80). By this time most of the residents

had fled, abandoning the town in what is called the “runaway

scrape” (Moore 1929:153).

The town of San Felipe de Austin was burned on

March 31, 1836. All buildings were set on fire with their

contents intact, and it was reported that a “large amount of

goods were destroyed by this fire” (Kuykendall 1903:41).

A week later the Mexican Army, led by General Ramirez y

Sesma, entered San Felipe de Austin and found “only the ashes

of what had been a town” (Kuykendall 1903:43). The chim-

neys of the burned houses remained standing as “truncated

pyramids,” and “great heaps of broken china” indicated

where the storerooms had been (Perry 1975:105, 106). It

was said that more than “fifty factories, full of objects of

great value” were lost because the warehouses had been

locked and set on fire (Perry 1975:112).

The Texas rear guard established itself behind a

redoubt on the north bank of the Brazos. The Mexicans dug

a trench on the south bank, installed two six-pound cannons,

and fired on the Texans. During the engagement the Texans

lost one man — San Felipe citizen John Bricker — and the

Mexicans lost two soldiers and a mule driver. The Texan

forces successfully held the river crossing, and the Mexican

troops were forced to travel downstream to cross the Brazos

River at Fort Bend (Castañeda 1928:173; Hoff 1938:12),

thereby giving Sam Houston additional time to prepare his

forces, which culminated in a Texas victory at San Jacinto on

April 21, 1836.

Within six months after the war ended a few little

shanties had been erected at the burned town site (Greer

1928:147). In 1837 the town was incorporated as San Felipe

(pronounced San Fillup) and was made the seat of Austin

County. Only a few of the original citizens of San Felipe de

Austin returned to San Felipe, and most of those who did

return chose to build on the prairie rather than on the original

town site (Fox and Whitsett 1987:11). During the Republic

of Texas era, the old town site was repeatedly described as a

deserted village, inhabited by only one or two families. The

streets and unoccupied lots were overgrown with weeds and

brush (Hollon and Butler 1956:181). Shortly after Texas’

annexation to the United States, San Felipe was described as

consisting of five or six miserable, dilapidated log and frame

buildings (Roemer 1849:77; Suthron 1846:100–101). The

county seat was moved to Bellville in 1846, the railroad

bypassed the town site in the late 1870s, and San Felipe con-

tinued to decline, never regaining the prosperity and influence

of the colonial era.

Research DesignThree years of research and archeological investigations have

identified the boundaries of the colonial occupation and

demonstrated the significance, cultural integrity, and tremen-

dous research potential of the site. This work has further

identified the probable — and in some cases the actual —

locations of individual homes and businesses within the colony.

Background research began with a search of the

colonial deed records and many other sources to identify the

owners of each of the colonial lots within San Felipe de Austin

(Figure 3). The colonial deed records are incomplete. Some

of the sources, however, provide descriptions of structures

and other amenities located on specific lots.

The town site of San Felipe de Austin was divided

into 582 town lots and 50 garden lots (Figure 2). Information

contained in the Austin County deed records indicates that

the “square” garden lots (Numbers 6 through 25) were each

12 acres in size. It may therefore be extrapolated that the

town site was divided into three-acre blocks with six half-acre

building lots per block. Most of the building lots measure 40

by 60 varas (34 by 51 m).

To date, archeological investigations have concentrated

on two large parcels of land owned by two separate families

and located to the north and south of FM 1458 (Figure 4).

Permission has been received from other landowners to con-

duct investigations on smaller parcels of property, and these

areas will be investigated later this year.

Professional surveyors located the corner of each

historic block (set of six lots). Each corner, when possible,

was permanently marked with an aluminum cap and rebar

set in concrete. Each aluminum cap is marked with the site

and corresponding colonial lot number and serves as the

permanent site datum for each area. Each of the individual

lots within each block was delineated using a tape and transit

and marked with wooden stakes.

A series of eight evenly spaced shovel tests was exca-

vated on most of the colonial lots within the project area.

CURRENT RESEARCH / SITE 41AU2 • 7

Figure 3. San Felipe de Austin colonial lot ownership (draft).

8 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

Figure 4. Site 41AU2 project areas.

CURRENT RESEARCH / SITE 41AU2 • 9

Areas exhibiting a lower potential for colonial deposits were

investigated by a series of four evenly spaced shovel tests down

the center of the lot. Shovel testing has identified which lots

have colonial deposits, and in some instances, the locations

of specific colonial features. Lots were selected for further

investigation on the basis of the results of shovel testing and

archival research, as well as vulnerability to erosion.

The THC conducted a magnetometer survey of

selected portions of the site. Magnetometer readings were

taken on Lots 16, 17, 18, 49, 50, 51, 82, 83, and 84. Several

possible features were delineated; however, a large amount

of metal was present on Lots 49, 50, and 51, making it diffi-

cult to interpret the readings. A second set of magnetometer

readings was taken on Lots 85, 86, 87, 112, 113, and 114.

Numerous anomalies were exhibited on Lots 87 and 112, which

is where William Williamson’s carpenter shop was located.

Phase II archeological testing further investigated

areas with the potential for significant colonial deposits. To

date, Phase II testing has been conducted on Lots 11 and 12,

which were owned by the Cheeves estate; Lot 530, owned by

the Peyton family; Lots 49 and 50, owned by G.B. Cotton;

Lot 82, owned by Jane Wilkins; Lot 84, owner unknown; and

Lot 87, owned by William Williamson (Figure 3).

Results of InvestigationsPhase II archeological testing on Lots 11 and 12 located

trash pits associated with the Cooper and Cheeves Tavern and

Billiard Room. This was the only frame structure in San Felipe

de Austin (Smithwick 1900:48). Copious amounts of broken

dishes, bottles, fauna, and other materials were recovered,

including charred botanical remains and fossilized mammoth

bones (Figure 5). Historical sources state that some of the

colonists found mammoth bones on the Brazos River and

brought them back to San Felipe de Austin to show them

to Stephen F. Austin (Jackson 2000:59). Townspeople also

discovered fossilized bone when the town well was dug

(Ohlendorf et al. 1980:322).

Large numbers of butchered animal bones were

recovered, consisting primarily of cow and pig remains. Noah

Smithwick (1900:51) states that Martin Varner raised hogs

in the river bottom, and colonists could simply shoot a hog

whenever they wanted pork. Burned peach pits were also

recovered. De la Peña (Perry 1975:106) mentions walking

through peach orchards on his way to San Felipe de Austin.

Other notable items recovered from the trash pits

on Lot 12 included gunflints, clay smoking-pipe bowls, a

padlock, half a pair of scissors, a fork, and a bone-inlaid

pocketknife. A nice array of ceramics was recovered from

a trash pit on Lot 11, including an edgeware serving platter;

a portion of a red transferware sugar bowl; fragments of a

hand-painted cream pitcher; an annularware cup with cable

design; and a virtually complete transferware plate (Figure 6).

Transferware plates with this design were also recovered from

Old Velasco. The pattern is “Virginia,” the scene is “strolling

through the willows,” and it was manufactured by James and

Ralph Clews between 1815 and 1834 (Pollan et al. 1996:

Plates 4, 84).

Excavations on Lot 534 uncovered the base of one

of the two fireplaces in Peyton’s Tavern (Figure 7) and the

structure’s basement. The base of the fireplace was made of

brick, and because the soils at San Felipe de Austin are sandy,

the colonists dug down through the sand and set the base

of the fireplace on the underlying clay. The base is perfectly

level: there is less than a half-inch difference in elevation

between the corners.

A unit to the north of the fireplace base extended to

a depth of more than 5 feet, indicating that the tavern had a

basement. The fill contained many artifacts, including frag-

ments of numerous dishes and wine bottles, a seal from a

French Bordeaux bottle, bone and shell buttons, a brass thim-Figure 5. Mammoth bone from Lot 12.

Figure 6. Transferware plate from Lot 11.

10 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

ble, a porcelain doll’s leg, two leather shoe heels, and a bone-

handled table knife. The recovered ceramics included edge-

ware platters, half of a hand-painted bowl, and a large

fragment of a German mineral water bottle.

The historical documents indicate that G.B. Cotton

had a home and newspaper office on Lots 49 and 50. Excava-

tions currently underway on Lot 50 have uncovered a large

plaster-lined cistern. The cistern measures approximately 10

feet in diameter by an estimated 12 feet in depth. The lower

part of the cistern was constructed by applying plaster directly

onto the underlying clay surface. The portion of the cistern

above the clay layer was not intact but appeared to have been

constructed with handmade brick and plastered internally.

Within the center of the plaster-lined cistern were the remains

of a large wooden barrel (Figure 8). The barrel measured 6

feet in diameter at the top and 6 1/2 feet in diameter at the

bottom by approximately 4 feet deep. It was constructed with

wooden staves held together by four large iron bands spaced

approximately 13 inches apart.

Fill within the cistern contained mainly brick, early

colonial artifacts, flakes, and Native American pottery. The

wooden barrel was densely packed with artifacts and charcoal,

indicating that it became a trash receptacle after it fell into

disuse. The stratigraphy and the artifacts recovered from these

two features allow us to interpret them as follows. The large

plaster-lined cistern is most likely colonial in origin. G.B. Cot-

ton owned a newspaper office and would have needed a large

amount of water for his newspaper business. At some later

period in time, the large plaster-lined cistern was renovated by

partially filling it with soil and placing the large wooden bar-

rel in the center to hold water. Later, the wooden-barrel cis-

tern was abandoned and intentionally filled with trash during

the 1840s Republic of Texas era.

There is also evidence of a Native American presence

at the site. We have recovered a number of lithic flakes and

pottery sherds from the lots near the river, including one Bell

point. The environment along the Brazos River was favorable

for habitation, and Native Americans probably lived in the

area throughout prehistory. However, we also have historical

accounts of Native Americans coming into San Felipe de Austin

to trade (Anonymous 1834:249–251).

ConclusionsThe San Felipe de Austin Project is currently in its third season

of excavation, and we hope that the project will continue

for many years to come. Site 41AU2 is extremely large, and

finding the exact location of a colonial structure on a half-

acre parcel is not often easy. Yet excavations to date have

demonstrated the integrity and tremendous research potential

of this very important colonial Texas site. Significant portions

of the site have been lost to erosion, and other portions are

extremely endangered. It is therefore imperative that we

excavate the endangered portions of the site before they are

gone. The San Felipe de Austin Project also strives to protect

the privately owned portions of the site through public educa-

tion and the development of tourism in the area. It bears

repeating that San Felipe de Austin is just as significant to Texas

history as Goliad, San Jacinto, the Alamo, and Washington-

on-the-Brazos, yet little has been done to study or preserve

this important site. We hope this project changes that.

ReferencesAnonymous

1834 A Visit to Texas, Being the Journal of a Traveller ThroughThose Parts Most Interesting to American Settlers. 1966

facsimile edition, Readex Microprint Corporation, Chester,

Vermont.

Barker, Eugene C.

1918 Minutes of the Ayuntamiento of San Felipe de Austin,

1828–1832, III. Southwestern Historical Quarterly22(1):78–95.

Figure 7. Lot 534, base of fireplace in Peyton’s Tavern. Figure 8. Lot 50, cistern with wooden barrel.

CURRENT RESEARCH / SITE 41AU2 • 11

1926 The Life of Stephen F. Austin, Founder of Texas, 1793–1836:A Chapter in the Westward Movement of the Anglo-AmericanPeople. Second Printing 1980, University of Texas Press,

Austin.

Brister, Louis E.

1999 The Journal of Col. Eduard Harkort, Captain of Engineers,

Texas Army, February 8–July 17, 1836. Southwestern HistoricalQuarterly 102(3):344–379.

Cantrell, Gregg

1999 Stephen F. Austin: Empresario of Texas. Yale University Press,

New Haven.

Castañeda, Carlos E. (editor and translator)

1925 Statistical Report on Texas [1835] by Juan N. Almonte.

Southwestern Historical Quarterly 28(3):177–222.

1928 The Mexican Side of the Texas Revolution [1836] By the ChiefMexican Participants: General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna,D. Ramon Martinez Caro (Secretary to Santa Anna), GeneralVicente Filisola, General Jose Urrea, and General Jose MariaTornel (Secretary of War). P.L. Turner Company, Dallas.

Fox, Daniel E., and W. Hayden Whitsett

1987 An Archeological Reconnaissance at the City of San Felipe,Austin County, Texas. Construction Grants Division, Texas

Water Development Board, Austin.

Greer, James K.

1928 Journal of Ammon Underwood, 1834–1838. SouthwesternHistorical Quarterly 32(2):124–151.

Haskew, Corrie Pattison

1969 Historical Records of Austin and Waller Counties. Premier

Printer and Letter Service, Houston.

Hoff, Blanche

1938 San Felipe de Austin, Capital of Austin’s Colony. Texas History

Essay Award, Sons of the Republic of Texas, Houston.

Hollon, W. Eugene, and Ruth Lapham Butler (editors)

1956 William Bollaert’s Texas. University of Oklahoma Press,

Norman.

Jackson, Jack (editor)

2000 Texas by Terán: The Diary kept by General Manuel de Mier yTerán on his 1828 Inspection of Texas. Translated by John

Wheat. University of Texas Press, Austin.

King, C. Richard

1981 The Lady Cannoneer: A Biography of Angelina Belle PeytonEberly, Heroine of the Texas Archives War. Eakin Press, Burnet,

Texas.

Kuykendall, J.H.

1903 Reminiscences of Early Texans: A Collection from the Austin

Papers. The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association7(1):29–64.

Moore, Wilma Harper

1929 A History of San Felipe de Austin. Unpublished Master’s thesis,

University of Texas at Austin.

Ohlendorf, Sheila M., Josette M. Bigelow, and Mary M. Standifer

(translators)

1980 Journey to Mexico During the Years 1826 to 1834, by Jean

Louis Berlandier. The Texas State Historical Association in

cooperation with the Center for Studies in Texas History,

University of Texas at Austin.

Parker, Amos Andrew

1835 Trip to the West and Texas. White and Fisher, Concord, New

Hampshire.

Perry, Carmen (translator)

1975 With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolu-tion by José Enrique de la Peña. Texas A&M University Press,

College Station.

Pollan, Sandra D., W. Sue Gross, Amy C. Earls, Johnney T. Pollan,

Jr., and James L. Smith

1996 Nineteenth-Century Transfer-Printed Ceramics from the Town-site of Old Velasco (41BO125), Brazoria County, Texas: AnIllustrated Catalogue. Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Austin.

Roemer, Ferdinand

1849 Texas with Particular Reference to German Immigration andthe Physical Appearance of the Country. 1935 translation by

Oswald Mueller, Standard Printing Company, San Antonio.

1967 facsimile edition, Texian Press, Waco, Texas.

Smithwick, Noah

1900 The Evolution of a State or Recollections of Old Texas Days.Reprinted in 1983, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Suthron, A.

1846 Prairiedom: Rambles and Scrambles in Texas or New Estre-nadura. Second Edition, Paine and Burgess, New York.

Marianne Marek is principal investigator of the San Felipe de AustinArcheology Project.

Announcement for Contractors from TxDOTThe Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Environ-

mental Affairs Division maintains a mailing list of archeological

contractors. Individuals and firms on this list receive notices

of upcoming requests for proposals (RFPs) and requests for

letters of interest in TxDOT RFPs. If you are not currently

receiving notices of upcoming RFPs for archeological services

from the Environmental Affairs Division and would like to

be added to the list, or if you would like to update your

information, email your name, mailing address, phone num-

ber, and preferred email address to Ernest Lamey, elamey@

dot.state.tx.us. If you would like to be removed from the list,

email that information to the same address.

12 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

In the spring of 2004, Coastal Environments, Inc. conducted

testing at the west end of site 41AS5, located on the north-

west shore of Swan Lake in Aransas County, Texas. Swan Lake

is a secondary bay connected to Copano Bay, one of several

large bay estuary systems on Texas’ central coast. This work

was intended to assess eligibility of the site for inclusion in

the National Register of Historic Places, as well as to deter-

mine if the site had potential to elucidate how prehistoric

hunter-gatherer-fisher populations responded to a dynamically

changing coastal environment during the Holocene. The local

shoreline is bordered by low clay dunes, eolian cumulic

deposits that tend to contain clear stratigraphies of layered

clay and silty clay with high vertical integrity that is well suited

to the acquisition of chronological data.

Our fieldwork involved the excavation of two 2 x

2 m hand-excavated units and three backhoe trenches (see

Figure 1). The hand-dug units were excavated with small

hand tools, and the recovered sediments were screened

through 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch mesh hardware cloth. The

backhoe trenches were dug in order to expand information

on the geologic stratigraphy at the site.

An additional aspect of work was the extraction of

sediment cores from the basin of nearby Swan Lake to obtain

a sequence of radiocarbon-datable samples from which fossil

pollen could be extracted. The resulting environmental recon-

struction would shed light on issues of sea-level change in the

Swan Lake estuary. Since sea-level dynamics had a fundamen-

tal influence on estuarine biotic productivity, they also strong-

ly influenced the adaptive decision making of the region’s

prehistoric peoples (see Ricklis and Cox 1991; Ricklis 1995a,

2004; Ricklis and Blum 1997).

StratigraphyAlthough the stratigraphy varied among units and trenches,

the wall profiles of 2 x 2 m Excavation Block A (see Figure 1)

are reasonably representative of the site.

Stratum I consisted of a dark gray to dark grayish

brown (Munsell 10YR4/1-10YR4/2) silty clay approximately

50 cm thick (0–50 cm depth from the ground surface). It was

largely sterile of cultural material or debris.

Stratum IA was designated as that part of Stratum I

that immediately overlaid the archeologically relevant Stratum

IB, discussed below.

Stratum IB consisted of a thin (2–3 cm thick) zone of

the same dark gray silty clay of Stratum I, but unlike Stratum

I it also contained a relatively high concentration of anthro-

pogenic, archeological debris, mainly in the form of whole

and (mostly) fragmentary estuarine shells. The shell species

represented are bivalves and gastropods. The bivalves include

oyster (Crassostrea virginica), sunray Venus (Macrocallistanimbosa), and bay scallop (Argopectin irradians). The gas-

tropods include lightning whelk (Busycon perversum), Tulip

(Fasciolaria illium), and shark eye (Polinices duplicatus). Also

Testing at 41AS5 on Swan Lake, Central Texas Coast: A Summary of theHuman-Ecological Implicationsby Robert A. Ricklis and Bruce M. Albert

Figure 1. Map of site 41AS5 project area showing topography, excava-tion units, and Core 2, from which pollen samples were extracted.

CURRENT RESEARCH / SWAN LAKE • 13

present in this stratum were whole and fragmentary shells of

Rabdotus land snails.

Stratum II was a pale brown silty clay, 4–10 cm thick,

that was almost devoid of archeological materials. Sparsely

present were Rabdotus shells and a few fragments of sunray

Venus clamshell.

Stratum IIIA consisted of dark gray (10YR3/1-

10YR3/2) silty clay, 5–8 cm thick, containing scattered bits

and flecks of charcoal, Rabdotus shells, and scattered frag-

ments of sunray Venus shell.

Stratum IIIB was a pale brown silty clay largely lack-

ing archeological materials. This stratum was 7–17 cm thick;

the range resulted from undulations in the top and bottom of

the stratum.

Stratum IIIC was similar to IIIA in that it had a dark

gray color (10YR3/1-10YR3/2) and contained abundant flecks

of charcoal and Rabdotus shells, lightning whelk and sunray

Venus clams. In thickness it ranged between 5 and 9 cm.

Stratum IV was a silty clay, pale brown (10YR6/3) in

color, at least 20 cm thick. The actual thickness is not known

because excavation in Block A was terminated within this stra-

tum at a depth of 76 cm below the surface.

FeaturesFive features were documented, all in wall profiles in Backhoe

Trenches (BHT) 1 and 2. Feature 1 was a possible dispersed

hearth, 45 x 90 cm, with a shallow basin-shaped profile and

a dark gray ashy fill containing small burned clay nodules,

Rabdotus shells, and a large lightning whelk (Busycon perver-sum) shell.

Feature 2 was a basin-shaped shallow pit near the east

of the north wall of BHT 1. In cross section it was observed

to be an arcuate distribution of burned clay nodules, Rabdotusshells, and charcoal flecks. This is interpreted as a small, per-

haps short-term, storage feature that was filled with debris

and soil after it ceased to be used. A complete absence of

burning of the inclusive shells suggests that it was not a

hearth, though it is possible that it was a hearth basin that

was filled with soil and shell debris.

Feature 3 was a dense concentration of crushed Rab-dotus shells in the east end of the north wall of BHT 1. It had

a flattened lenticular profile and measured 8 cm thick by 50 cm

long along the trench wall. There was no evidence of in situ

burning, and this feature may be a dumped pile of snail shells

that were crushed after deposition, perhaps by human treadage.

Feature 4 was a lens of dark gray clay within a lighter

clay matrix that contained small burned clay nodules and

flecks of charcoal. The charcoal, the burned clay nodules, and

the relatively dark color of the fill — perhaps the result of

charcoal and ash inclusions — suggest that this feature was a

dispersed hearth.

Feature 5 was another basin-shaped anomaly. Its

upper edge was at 95 cm below surface, and the bottom was

10 cm below that. The feature rested entirely within the lower

stratum in BHT 2, a pale brown silty clay. The fill contained

charcoal and a scattering of Rabdotus shells and was generally

stained a dark gray color (10YR4/1) that contrasted with the

surrounding matrix. At its upper boundary the feature was 60

cm in length along the wall profile of the backhoe trench.

This feature is interpreted as a small basin-shaped hearth.

Charcoal from the fill was submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for

radiocarbon dating and produced an age of 3100 ± 40 B.P.,

which calibrates to 3360–3270 B.P.

ArtifactsLithics. These are four in number, including one chert dart

point (Figure 2a) and three chert flakes. The dart point has a

triangular outline. It is flaked from a fine-grained dark brown

chert and has a length of 53 mm, a width of 29 mm, and a

maximum thickness of 5.5 mm. This point is assigned to the

Tortugas type (see Turner and Hester 1999). This specimen

was a surface find on the eroded margin of the clay dune on

the southern edge of the site. It was found still embedded in

silty clay matrix at a level immediately below Stratum IIIC as

recorded in Block A.

Figure 2. Artifacts from 41AS5. (a) Tortugas dart point (two faces);(b) edge-flaked sunray Venus clamshell tool.

The paucity of lithics reflects the absence of workable

stone along the Texas coast. The Tortugas point type is dated

to between ca. 5000 B.P. and 2600 B.P. in southern Texas (see

Hester 1980; Taylor and Highley 1995). Given that the speci-

men reported here came from below Stratum IIIC, it may

pertain to the occupational episode that left behind shell

from BHT 2 with a calibrated age range of 3810–3650 B.P.

Although this association is not very tight, this age range

does correspond well to the time range expected for the type.

Shell. A single shell tool was found during the test excavations.

This is an edge-flaked sunray Venus clamshell knife or scraper

(Figure 2b), a common tool type on sites in the central Texas

coast area (e.g., Story 1968; Ricklis 1995a, 1996). The speci-

men reported here, which is 93 cm long, came from Stratum

IB in Block A.

Radiocarbon DatesIn order to obtain a chronological placement for the human

occupations at site 41AS5, samples were submitted to Beta

Analytic, Inc. for radiocarbon dating. A total of nine C14

assays were run, four on shells and one on charcoal from the

site, and four on bulk sediment humates from Core 2 in the

nearby Swan Lake basin (see data presented in Table 1, which

shows the uncorrected radiocarbon ages, the delta-C13 cor-

rected ages, and the 1-sigma dendrochronologically calibrated

age ranges). It should be noted that a marine calibration is

not used for the shell dates. Based on data from paired shell-

charcoal samples from several Texas coast shell middens, it

appears that a standard atmospheric calibration is more

appropriate for the shallow Texas estuaries, inferably because

the mollusks lived in very shallow water that had an essentially

atmospheric level of C14 input (see discussion in Ricklis 1999).

The results are all chronologically coherent in terms

of the relative depths of the samples within the site deposits.

Thus, lightning whelk shell from Stratum IB produced a

calibrated age range of 2740–2500 B.P., sunray Venus from

Stratum IIIA produced an age range of 2850–2770 B.P., and

sunray Venus from Stratum IIIC yielded a range of 2950–

2870 B.P. Samples taken from the wall profile of BHT 2 are

likewise in sequential order: charcoal from the small hearth,

Feature 5, which was in a pale brown silty clay stratum that

is believed to be the equivalent of Stratum IV in Block A,

produced a calibrated age range of 3360–3270 B.P., while

lightning whelk shells from the matrix into which the hearth

was dug yielded an age range of 3810–3730 B.P.

14 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

Table 1. Radiocarbon Data from Testing at Site 41AS5

Lab No. Material Provenience C14 Age 13C-Corrected Age

1-Sigma Calibrated

Age Range B.P.

Beta-194904 Whelk shell Stratum IB 2150 ± 70 2560 ± 70 2740–2500

Beta-194905

Sunray

Venus shell Stratum IIIA 2300 ± 50 2690 ± 50 2850–2770

Beta-194903

Sunray

Venus shell Stratum IIIC 2450 ± 70 2810 ± 40 2950–2870

Beta-194897 Charcoal Feature 5 3100 ± 40 3100 ± 40 3360–3270

Beta-194898 Whelk shell

BHT 2

under F. 5 3040 ± 50 3460 ± 60 3810–3730

Beta-194899

Bulk

sediment

Core 2

220–280 cm 3790 ± 40 3920 ± 40 4410–4290

Beta-194900

Bulk

sediment

Core 2

80–102 cm 100 ± 50 130 ± 50 250–40

Beta-194901

Bulk

sediment

Core 2

420–450 cm 5050 ± 40 5150 ± 40 5940–5790

Beta-194902

Bulk

sediment

Core 2

490–515 cm 6100 ± 40 6130 ± 40 7130–6940

No evidence of occupation was found at the site

deeper than the whelk shells in the Feature 5 matrix, so it

seems reasonable to conclude that the earliest occupation of

the site took place around 3800–3650 years ago, in the early

part of the Late Archaic period. Subsequently, a series of

short-term occupational episodes occurred at ca. 3000 B.P.

(Feature 5), 3000–2800 B.P. (Stratum IIIC), 2800 B.P. (Stratum

IIIA), and 2700–2500 B.P. (Stratum IB).

The Palynological FindingsA series of 12 sediment samples from a 2 inch diameter, 5.8 m

long core taken in the bottom of nearby Swan Lake (location

shown on Figure 1) was analyzed by the junior author for pollen

to determine proportions of species represented for each sample.

Additionally, five sediment samples from Core 2 were submit-

ted to Beta Analytic for radiocarbon dating.

The goal of the analysis was to obtain information

on the history of Swan Lake as an estuarine environment in

which physical and biotic conditions fluctuated in response to

changes in sea level during the period encompassing site occu-

pation. The radiocarbon dates on the core sediments bracket

a timeline that begins ca. 7400 B.P. and ends in recent historic

times. Significant fluctuations were found in salt-tolerant

aquatic (marsh) species such as the Chenopodiaceae (see

Figure 3), and it is inferred that periods in which these plants

were relatively abundant in the Swan Lake environment

reflect marine transgression and attendant rise in salinity

associated with sea level rise or highstand. Alternatively, these

periods may have been marked by sea-level stillstands during

which the climate was relatively dry (thus reducing freshwater

input into the bay) or when barrier islands had not yet

formed offshore, allowing greater marine influence into the

bay than if such barriers were present and fully developed.

The latter seems a distinct possibility for the early (ca. 7400–

7000 B.P.) spike in Chenopodiaceae during a period in which

abundant shell-midden formation at some sites in the region

suggests stable and exploitable estuarine conditions (e.g.,

Ricklis and Blum 1997).

For “Pollen Zone 2,” it is suggested that low repre-

sentation of Chenopodiaceae represents a sea-level stillstand

during which marine influence was significantly mitigated by

freshwater discharge into coastal bays. This is completely in

accord with ecological evidence derived from archeological

sites in the region that strongly suggest high estuarine biotic

productivity and an abundance of low-to-moderate-salinity

mollusks in the bays (e.g., Ricklis 1995b).

Somewhat later, ca. 4900–4250 B.P. (Pollen Zone 3),

a major spike in halophytic vegetation is interpreted as evi-

dence for rising sea level or highstand. This accords with ear-

lier interpretations that suggest a major reduction in human

shoreline occupation and estuarine resource use by ca. 4500

B.P. as a response to destruction of productive and exploitable

high-biomass shallows by rapidly rising sea level (Ricklis

1995a; Ricklis and Blum 1997).

The data for Pollen Zones 4 and 5 suggest that still-

stand conditions were reached by ca. 3750 B.P. and continued

at least until ca. 3000 B.P. It has generally been recognized

that modern stillstand was reached on the Gulf of Mexico by

around 3,000 years ago (e.g., Frazier 1974; Ricklis and Blum

1997; Balsillie and Donoghue 2004). If, in fact, this stillstand

dates to as early as ca. 3750 B.P., then the entire occupation

sequence at site 41AS5 can be related to the emergence of

essentially modern estuarine conditions under the modern

stillstand regime that entailed expansion of high-productivity

shallows behind the protection of the mature barrier island

system.

CURRENT RESEARCH / SWAN LAKE • 15

Figure 3. Pollen diagram based on analysis of pollen samples from Core 2, site 41AS5. Note calibrated radiocarbon dates from various depths inthe core along left side of the diagram; Pollen Zones are listed numerically as PAZ in the right-hand column.

16 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

ConclusionsThe stated goals for testing at site 41AS5 (Ricklis 2004) were

to identify strata in the clay dune matrix that represented

periods of prehistoric human occupation, to obtain radiocar-

bon dates to place those occupations within the regional

culture chronology, and to find ecological data with which to

test ideas about the nature of the exploitable environment as

related to sea level fluctuations. It was posited that sea level

may have been at a highstand during occupation, since this

end of Swan Lake is presently slightly above sea level and since

this presumably was not the case in the past if fish and shell-

fish were being harvested nearby and brought onto the site.

All these goals have been achieved, though with some

results that diverge from expectations. A clear series of occu-

pational episodes have been stratigraphically identified and

can be placed within a chronological sequence based on the

radiocarbon data. The initial occupation at the site apparently

took place around 3,700 years ago, judging from a calibrated

age range of 3810–3650 B.P. on lightning whelk shells from

the lower, pale-brown silty clay stratum in BHT 2. Clearly,

the high-salinity gastropod lightning whelk was gathered,

presumably as a food resource, at this time. No other data

can be cited for this period, with the possible exception of the

use of the Tortugas-type dart point, one of which was found

in the eroded dune margin in matrix pertaining to this same

sedimentary stratum.

Several centuries later, the small hearth in BHT 2,

Feature 5, was built and used; a charcoal sample from this

feature provided a calibrated age range of 3360–3270 B.P.

There is an absence of associated information on this occupa-

tion, though the fact that no anthropogenic sediments (i.e.,

middens, or ashy soil layers) were associated with the feature

strongly suggests a very short-term and limited occupation of

the site at this time.

Three stratigraphically higher occupation episodes

are indicated in Block A. Strata IIIA and IIIB were both thin

layers of charcoal-and-ash-stained sediments that contained

limited quantities of shell, mainly sunray Venus fragments,

and a number of small unidentifiable fragments of faunal

bone. Four fish vertebrae and three fish otoliths (from two

marine catfish and one sea trout) were found in Stratum IIIC.

Thus, procurement of estuarine food resources, as well as

some amount of hunting of terrestrial animals, are indicated

for these strata, which date, respectively, to 3020–2840 B.P.

and 2850–2770 B.P.

Finally, Stratum IB, which was explored in both Blocks

A and B, yielded a relatively wide range of shell species. The

most abundant was, again, sunray Venus, with scallop also

fairly well represented, along with a variety of gastropods that

include lightning whelk, shark eye, and Tulip. This is the only

stratum that yielded the usually far more abundant oyster.

Fish remains, in the forms of a vertebra and a black drum

otolith, were also present, as well as a deer phalange and 11

unidentified small bone fragments. Rabdotus land-snail shells

were also relatively abundant, and it is possible that this snail

was used as food at the site at this time (as opposed to the

shells merely representing natural deaths of snails at the site).

In short, Stratum IB (2740–2500 B.P., calibrated) produced

evidence for the widest and most varied range of food pro-

curement strategies of any stratum investigated, and this may

reflect the relative biotic maturation of the nearby Swan Lake

estuary by ca. 2700 years ago, in keeping with the emergence

of intensive estuarine resource exploitation at this time at

much larger shell-midden sites on nearby Copano Bay and site

41AS16 (Prewitt et al. 1987).

In sum, the site appears to have been sporadically and

recurrently occupied between approximately 3,800 and 2,500

years ago for short periods of time by small groups. At no

point was occupation intensive, given the minimal amounts

of anthropogenic debris that accumulated in any archeological

stratum. Hunting of game, gathering of shellfish, and fishing

were consistently carried out as subsistence activities.

Occupations do not appear to have taken place during

sea-level highstands. The geological and geoarcheological

evidence suggest that the radiocarbon ages of the pertinent

strata do not fall into periods of highstand. Those periods are

believed to have been at the end of the middle Holocene, ca.

4500–4000 B.P. (Ricklis and Blum 1997), and again around

1500–2000 B.P. (see Ricklis and Weinstein, in press), whereas

the occupations at site 41AS5 date after ca. 3700 B.P., when

sea level was at or near its present position (as also suggested

by the pollen data obtained in the present project).

The overall dearth of stone artifacts may be attributed

to the considerable distance of site 41AS5 from any source of

workable chert, in addition to the generally limited activities

that seem to characterize occupations here. The nearest

known source of chert is Pliocene gravel exposed along the

Nueces River some 60 km inland (Ricklis and Cox 1993).

The two calibrated radiocarbon age ranges in the

second millennium B.C. represent a time period for which

other data indicate relatively minimal occupation of the

Central Texas coast (Ricklis and Cox 1991; Ricklis 1995a;

Ricklis and Blum 1997). The fact that there are relatively

few dated occupations between 4000 and 3000 B.P. has been

attributed to the ecologically disruptive effects of unstable

and perhaps rising sea level at this time. If this were in fact

the case, it is possible that the location of site 41AS5 at the

inland margin of a small secondary bay system may have been

less vulnerable to such effects than the broad shallows of the

larger, more seaward bays. It may be significant that the only

shell species found from this time period is the high-salinity

lightning whelk — it is possible that highstand or rising sea

level at this time involved marine transgression and attendant

high estuarine salinity that would be conducive to whelk

survival but probably detrimental to the viability of oyster,

scallop, and other moderate-salinity bivalves.

CURRENT RESEARCH / SWAN LAKE • 17

The three later occupation strata, in Block A — Strata

IB, IIIA, and IIIC — all pertain to the ca. post-3000 B.P. peri-

od recognized to have seen markedly increased and intensive

coastal occupation due to stabilization of modern sea level

and formation of the modern protective barrier islands and

establishment of extensive, biotically high-productivity estuar-

ine shallows (Ricklis and Blum 1997). These strata date to

between 2950 and 2500 B.P., a time when major, intensively

occupied shell-midden sites such as Kent-Crane on Copano

Bay and Mustang Lake near San Antonio Bay (Ricklis 1996)

were initially occupied for fishing and intensive shellfish gath-

ering. Large shell middens such as these, and others, are

believed to be the Late Archaic prototypes of Late Prehistoric

“Group 1” sites, which are interpreted to represent seasonal

fishing base camps where large groups or “macro-bands” con-

gregated seasonally (Ricklis 1992, 1996). The small, short-

term occupations, presumably by small groups, represented at

site 41AS5 are in contrast to such major campsites, and may

in fact represent either splinter groups who separated from

the main population for some reason, perhaps as “overflow”

from crowded base camps, or perhaps to perform special tasks

such as hunting. The latter possibility may be supported by

the site’s location in a bay-head area in close proximity to

prairie uplands where deer and other game could have been

relatively abundant. If this was the case, it is clear that the

nearby Swan Lake was, to a limited degree, exploited for fish

and shellfish as well.

ReferencesBalsillie, J.H., and J.F. Donoghue

2004 High Resolution Sea-Level History for the Gulf of MexicoSince the Last Glacial Maximum. Florida Geological Survey,

Tallahassee.

Frazier, D.E.

1974 Depositional Episodes: Their Relationship to the QuaternaryFramework in the Northwestern Portion on the Gulf Basin.

Geological Circular 74, Bureau of Economic Geology, Univer-

sity of Texas at Austin.

Prewitt, E.R., S.V. Lisk, and M.A. Howard

1987 National Register Assessments of the Swan Lake Site, 41AS16,on Copano Bay, Aransas County, Texas. Prewitt and Associates,

Reports of Investigations No. 56, Austin.

Ricklis, R.A.

1992 Aboriginal Karankawan Adaptation and Colonial Period

Acculturation: Archeological and Ethnohistorical Evidence.

Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 63:211–243.

1995a Prehistoric Occupation of the Central and Lower Texas Coast:

A Regional Overview. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society66:265–300.

1995b Environmental and Human Adaptive Change on the NuecesBay Shoreline: Phase 1 Archaeological Data Recovery at KochRefining Company Middle Plant, Nueces County, Texas.Coastal Archaeological Research, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas.

1996 The Karankawa Indians of Texas: An Ecological Study of Cul-tural Tradition and Change. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1999 Atmospheric Calibration of Radiocarbon Ages on Shallow-

Water Estuarine Shells from Texas Coast Sites and the Prob-

lem of Questionable Shell-Charcoal Pairing. Bulletin of theTexas Archeological Society 70:479–488.

2004 Proposal for Archaeological Testing of Site 41AS5, Swan Lake,Aransas County, Texas. Submitted to Naismith Engineering,

Inc. Coastal Environments, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas.

Ricklis, R.A., and M.D. Blum

1997 The Geoarchaeological Record of Sea Level Change and

Human Occupation of the Texas Gulf Coast. Geoarchaeology:An International Journal 12(4):287–314.

Ricklis, R.A., and K.A. Cox

1991 Toward a Chronology of Adaptive Change During the Archaic

of the Texas Coastal Bend Area. La Tierra, Journal of theSouthern Archaeological Association 18(2):13–31.

1993 Examining Lithic Technological Organization as a Dynamic

Cultural Subsystem: The Advantages of an Explicitly Spatial

Approach. American Antiquity 58(3):444–461.

Ricklis, R.A., and R.A. Weinstein

in press Holocene Sea Level Rise and Human Ecology Along the

Texas Gulf Coast: Exploring Cultural-Ecological Correlates.

In Archaeology of the Gulf Coast, edited by N. White, Univer-

sity Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Story, D.

1968 Archeological Investigations at Two Central Gulf Coast Sites.Report No. 13, Archeological Program, State Building Com-

mission, Austin.

Taylor, A.J., and C.L. Highley

1995 Archeological Investigations at the Loma Sandia Site (41LK28):A Prehistoric Cemetery and Campsite in Live Oak County,Texas. Studies in Archeology 20, Texas Archeological Research

Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.

Turner, E., and T.R. Hester

1999 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of the Texas Indians. Third

Edition, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.

Project Sponsor: Naismith Engineering, Inc., Corpus Christi

Governmental Agency: San Patricio County Water District.

Contracting Archeologists: Coastal Environments, Inc.

Principal Investigator: Robert A. Ricklis

Project Palynologist: Bruce M. Albert

18 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

Data Recovery at Site41HM51, HamiltonCounty, Texasby Karl W. Kibler and Cory J. Broehm

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Environ-

mental Affairs Division, sponsored survey, testing, and data-

recovery projects at site 41HM51 in advance of construction

of a new bridge on CR 294 over the Leon River in Hamilton

County. The data-recovery excavations, summarized here,

were conducted under TAC Permit No. 3405.

Site 41HM51 is located on a late Holocene terrace

of the Leon River, the surface of which is divided into T1a

and T1b components by a scarp approximately 1 m in height.

Alluvium below the T1b surface is laterally inset to and draped

over an older unit below the T1a surface. A cumulic soil or

paleosol, the top of which is 60 to 200 cm below the T1a

surface, caps the older alluvial unit. Site 41HM51, identified

through trenching during survey in November 2003 (Kibler

2003), is situated on top of, and within the upper portions

of, the paleosol. The buried soil is similar to the Leon River

paleosol identified downstream at Fort Hood (see Mehalchick

et al. 1999) in its pedogenic character and geomorphic con-

text. The Leon River paleosol, yielding humate ages of 1160

± 40 B.P. and 1010 ± 70 B.P., contains discrete Late Archaic

and Austin phase assemblages (Mehalchick et al. 1999:215,

268; Nordt 1992). The similarities between the two soils,

particularly their cumulic nature, suggested that site 41HM51

had the potential to yield discrete assemblages or components.

It was deemed potentially eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places and designation as a State Archeo-

logical Landmark, and subsequent test excavations took place

in December 2003 and January 2004.

Test excavations involved the mechanical stripping

of the recent alluvial drape to the top of the paleosol and

subsequent placement and hand excavation of test units

within the stripped areas or trenches. These investigations

recovered one Ensor dart point, five Perdiz arrowpoints and

other arrowpoint fragments, a small number of other chipped

and groundstone tools, chert flakes, a few modified pieces of

bone and mussel shell, vertebrate faunal remains, freshwater

mussel shells, and burned clay and rocks from feature and

nonfeature contexts. Of special note were five pottery sherds,

all appearing to be from the same vessel and of the same

type: Bullard Brushed, a Late Caddo type that is known from

Central Texas as a trade ware (Suhm and Jelks 1962:21).

Seven features were identified, representing shallow basins

with burned rocks, ash, and charcoal; hearth or boiling stone

dumps or discard piles; and a mussel shell cluster. Five radio-

carbon ages on wood charcoal from four of these features, all

from the paleosol surface, produced date ranges (2-sigma)

falling between A.D. 1300 and 1640.

The testing results showed that site 41HM51 was

an open campsite that consisted of two identifiable compo-

nents: (1) a Late Prehistoric Toyah phase occupation at the

paleosol surface and interface with the overlying recent

alluvial drape; and (2) a terminal Late Archaic occupation

70 to 90 cm below the top of the paleosol. The Toyah phase

occupation, based largely on its artifact content and superb

contextual integrity, was judged to have the capacity to

produce additional valuable data. The site was recommended

as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places and designation as a State Archeological Landmark,

and as such, warranted data-recovery excavations (Broehm

et al. 2004:35–36).

Data-Recovery InvestigationsData-recovery excavations began in April and ended in July

2004. These excavations focused solely on the Toyah phase

occupation, the debris of which rested on the surface of the

paleosol. Excavations consisted of machine stripping the more

recent alluvial drape to within approximately 30 cm of the

top of the paleosol over an approximately 256 m2 area

between Backhoe Trenches 7 and 9 from testing (Figure 1).

Two additional trenches were excavated south of this area,

again to within 30 cm of the top of the paleosol. Within the

stripped area and two new trenches, the hand excavation of

60.1 m3 in the form of 155 1 x 1 m excavation units (153

contiguous units in the stripped area) took place. From the

surface of the stripped area the hand excavations extended

on average 20–30 cm into the paleosol.

Results of Data-Recovery Excavations

Artifacts and Other Materials. Excavations recovered 63

projectile points or projectile point fragments, 60 of which

are arrowpoints, including fragments and preforms. The vast

majority of these are Perdiz. Other chipped stone tools include

266 bifaces (including beveled knives), unifaces (including

end scrapers), and edge-modified flakes. Four cores and

approximately 6,265 pieces of chert debitage also were

recovered. A cursory examination of the debitage shows

that it largely consists of small-to-medium-sized flakes,

representing late stage reduction and tool manufacture from

small cobbles, and possibly some tool maintenance. Included

in the debitage and tool assemblage are six pieces of obsidian,

all of which macroscopically appear to be from the same

source. The pieces include four small resharpening flakes, an

arrowpoint medial fragment (cf. Perdiz) and the distal end of

the former arrowpoint fragment. Fifteen groundstone tools

and tool fragments and 44 pottery sherds were recovered.

CURRENT RESEARCH / SITE 41HM51 • 19

Based on preliminary observations, all appear to represent

Late Caddoan style vessels, including a brushed ware (cf.

Bullard Brushed) and an untyped, slightly burnished ware.

At this point no bone-tempered pottery has been identified.

Eleven modified bones were recovered from site 41HM51.

These specimens include modified pieces of deer antler as well.

Approximately 5,203 vertebrate faunal remains were

recovered. The specimens are generally fragmentary. Bison

constituted a large portion of the identifiable taxa. The bison

elements include ribs, metapodials, and scapulae. Typically

these are nearly complete, showing minimal damage. Fewer

primary elements (long bones) are present. Typically these

consist of the ends of the bone only, with shafts partially

present or only present as fragments. Bones from small- and

medium-sized mammals, and deer, are also present, as are fish

vertebrae. Approximately 715 freshwater mussel shell umbos

also were recovered. Macrobotanical remains recognized in

the field consisted almost solely of charred wood from nine

features. Flotation of feature matrix samples (92 liters collected)

should yield more remains.

The nine features consist of two shallow basins filled

with burned rocks and charcoal; a cluster or dump of hearth

or boiling stones; an ash and oxidized sediment lens (informal

fireplace?); a cluster or dump of broken tools and burned

rocks, flakes, and bones; a cluster of bison bones (ribs and

metapodial); a cluster of deer elements (calvarium with antlers,

two mandibles, and lower leg elements); a cluster of flakes or

knapping debris; and a mussel shell scatter (Figure 2).

Artifact and Feature Distributions. The Toyah component,

resting on the surface of the paleosol and the focus of the

data-recovery excavations, accounts for the vast majority of

the materials recovered, but some materials are associated

with a component embedded in the paleosol that is not yet

identified temporally or culturally. Key points regarding the

distributions of the Toyah and earlier component assemblages

within the site are described below. Much of this is based on

observations made in the field and is not meant to be the final

word on the subject. Subsequent analysis will undoubtedly

clarify some matters and change our interpretation of others.

Figure 1. Plan of site 41HM51 showing locations of data-recoveryexcavation block and backhoe trenches in relation to testing trenches.

Figure 2. (a) bison-bone concentration (Feature 2); and (b) basin-shapedhearth (Feature 1).

a

b

20 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

Toyah Phase. Seven of the nine features (all but the mussel

shell scatter and cluster of knapping debris) were found on

the paleosol surface and are assigned to the Toyah component.

Radiocarbon ages are not yet available for these features, and

only one is associated with a Perdiz point, but their shared

general provenience (i.e., the paleosol surface) with other

Perdiz points, beveled knives, bison elements, and ceramics

suggests they are the product of Toyah folk activities. These

seven, combined with the five features assigned to the Toyah

component from testing, represent 12 features recorded as the

Toyah component at site 41HM51. These features cluster in

two areas, the northeastern and east-central part of the block

and adjacent test units, and the southwestern portion of the

block and adjacent test units (Figure 3).

The southwestern cluster consists of five features:

three basin-shaped hearths of similar size and content (Features

1 and 7, and F-6 from testing); an ash pit (F-4 from testing);

and a discard pile (F-5 from testing) associated with Feature 6.

Relatively higher frequencies of bones and debitage were asso-

ciated with this cluster. The northeastern and east-central

cluster consists of seven features: a basin-shaped hearth

(F-8 from testing); an ash and charcoal-filled basin (F-9

from testing); clusters of bison (F-2) and deer bones (F-6);

a discard pile of hearth or boiling stones (F-8); a discard pile

of tool fragments and burned rocks, flakes, and bones (F-4);

and an ash and oxidized sediment lens (F-5). This area also

yielded high densities of bones and debitage. Projectile points

and other chipped stone tools were infrequent in this area,

however.

Unknown Component. Materials associated with the tempo-

rally and culturally unknown component were found 10 and

25 cm below the paleosol surface. It is unclear if all the mate-

rials are part of a single, discrete component, or if some are

intrusive from the overlying Toyah component. In any case,

the cultural materials are sparse and occur sporadically across

the site and consist primarily of a few bison bones, pieces of

burned clay, and mussel shells. Lithics of any type are largely

absent from this component. The cluster of knapping debris

and the mussel shell scatter are assigned to this component

even though a Perdiz point (believed to be intrusive) is associ-

ated with the latter. It should be noted that a Perdiz point

was found during test excavations at 60 to 70 cm below the

paleosol surface, illustrating that some vertical movement

of artifacts has occurred. The features and component may

represent an earlier Toyah occupation, although its presence

within the paleosol tends to contradict the notion that this

soil predates the Toyah archeological record (see Mehalchick

et al. 1999). Stratigraphically, the materials assigned to this

component appear to be too high above the Late Archaic

component identified in testing to be associated with it.

Multiple charcoal samples collected for radiocarbon dating

from the mussel shell scatter may clarify its temporal affiliation.

Relevant Research IssuesA preliminary assessment of these investigations suggests that

the data sets recovered from site 41HM51 are well suited to

address four broad topics of inquiry: (1) the local environment

at the time of the Toyah occupation; (2) intrasite patterning

and the delineation of activity areas in Toyah camps; (3) Toyah

subsistence and economic activities; and (4) mobility, interre-

gional contact, and exchange among Toyah folk at site

41HM51, other Toyah groups, and non-Toyah groups.

Environmental Reconstruction. Environmental reconstruction

at site 41HM51 will involve the resolution of two broad,

interconnected issues: the reconstruction of climate and of

the local flora and fauna. Relevant materials recovered are

gastropods and macrobotanical remains from feature flotation

samples and vertebrate and invertebrate remains recovered

from dry screening and feature flotation samples. Soil and

sediment samples were also collected for the purpose of

diatom, phytolith, and pollen recovery, as well as to measure

stable carbon isotope ratios of the organic matter. Soil/

sediment samples were collected from the top levels of the

Figure 3. Plan of data-recovery excavation block and test units at site41HM51, showing distribution of Toyah-age features.

20 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

CURRENT RESEARCH / SITE 41HM51 • 21

paleosol and the overlying dark muds and clays at the base of

the recent alluvial drape.

Such analyses can provide a sense of the local flora

and environmental parameters at the site at the time of the

Toyah occupation and shortly thereafter. The alluvial stratig-

raphy and pedogenic history of the locale indicate a change

in landscape morphology and hydrologic conditions during

and certainly after the Toyah occupation. Local floral patterns

and other environmental elements should have changed

accordingly. Gastropods and certain small mammals inhabit

a narrow environmental (temperature and moisture) range,

and their presence may be an indicator of these variables.

Other mammals may inhabit and utilize a broader habitat,

but their presence will give some insight into the presence

of these habitats and their climatic correlates. Identification

of mussel shell species present may indicate some of the

hydrologic conditions of their source, presumably the Leon

River.

Macrobotanical recovery from flotation samples

from many of the features recorded during testing was often

excellent, albeit seemingly weighted in favor of wood charcoal

rather than seeds or nuts. Flotation samples from data recovery

hold similar promise. The floral regime, and some indication

of general climate, can be directly inferred from macrobotani-

cal remains recovered from flotation. Faunal preservation was

excellent; the identification of faunal remains will not only

provide an indication of what animals were locally available,

but also will serve as a proxy for climatic conditions.

Intrasite Patterning and Delineation of Activity Areas. An

understanding of the intrasite patterning of Toyah campsites is

incomplete due to the small number of extensively excavated

sites. In addition to the basic issues of site function and delin-

eation of activity areas, questions such as the identification of

communal areas, estimation of group size, and length of occu-

pation may be addressed at site 41HM51 simply based on the

size of the excavated block and the types and quantities of

materials recovered. The overall artifact assemblage is robust,

both quantitatively and qualitatively, and preliminary assess-

ment suggests horizontal patterning. This is particularly true

for vertebrate faunal remains. Clusters of features are evident

and can indicate the types of activities occurring at the site

and how those activities were organized. The small number of

features may actually suggest a shorter, perhaps single-

episode, occupation with less overprinting of activities that

one would expect with longer or multiple occupations. Like-

wise, feature distribution may also be useful in answering

questions about group size and communal areas, although,

unfortunately, no evidence of structures was found. At the

Rush site, Quigg and Peck (1995) also estimated group size on

the basis of the number of bison represented at the site. The

vertebrate faunal assemblage at site 41HM51 is certainly

robust enough to estimate perhaps a minimum group size.

Subsistence and Economic Activities. Indeed, the recovered

artifacts and recorded features bear most directly on subsis-

tence, and subsistence and group organization are intimately

intertwined. While it is generally clear what was being

exploited at a site, it takes considerable more analysis to

support any ideas about the wider subsistence process, from

the selection of resources (which may be constrained by

availability, seasonality, and culture), to their procurement,

processing, consumption, discard, and eventual entry into

the archeological record. Additional questions about group

organization, group size, and division of labor during these

activities require the construction of a more delicate frame-

work for conclusion. The basic questions to be addressed at

site 41HM51 are: (1) what kinds of resources were being

exploited in the local environment (as a function of total

resources in the area); (2) how were these resources acquired

and processed; and (3) during which season did resource

procurement take place.

Emphasis will be placed on analysis of vertebrate,

invertebrate, and macrobotanical remains. In these areas, site

41HM51 is well suited to answer basic questions about sub-

sistence of Toyah peoples. Faunal remains were abundant and

well preserved and should provide ample species identifica-

tions. In particular, large numbers of bison bones were recov-

ered, and the elements represented seem to reflect a selection

bias and differential preservation. This is most likely due to

varying levels of processing occurring both on and off the site.

Freshwater mussel shells were not particularly well preserved,

but their relative abundance may give some indication of their

relative importance in the diet. Recovery of macrobotanical

remains by flotation of feature fill promises to be good. This

may provide insight into which plants were consumed and

used for fuel, and the extent of use. Both vertebrate and mac-

robotanical remains may also give some insight into the season

of occupation. Bone preservation is likely good enough to

infer age structure. The types of seeds/nuts present in the

flotation may give some indication of the season of procure-

ment. The overall balance of vertebrate and invertebrate

remains and macrobotanical remains may also clarify the

function of the site (i.e., a special site for bison processing

or a more general campsite).

The overall lithic assemblage recovered from site

41HM51 is “classic” Toyah as defined by Johnson (1994).

What part this tool kit played in subsistence, particularly in

terms of procurement and processing of resources, will be a

focus of analysis. To this end, a number of the formal tools

(scrapers and bifaces) have been left unwashed for residue

analysis.

Interregional Contact and Exchange. Site 41HM51 provides

an excellent opportunity to address issues of interregional

contact. Two types of artifacts (ceramic vessel sherds and

obsidian) were recovered that appear to have originated some

CURRENT RESEARCH / SITE 41HM51 • 21

distance from the site; furthermore, these two artifact types

probably came from opposite directions.

The ceramic sherds recovered are a Late Caddoan

ceramic type identified as Bullard Brushed. This ceramic type

occurs mainly in the area of the Neches and Sabine rivers in

northeast Texas ca. A.D. 1200–1500 and is known from

Central Texas as a trade ware (Suhm and Jelks 1962:21). The

presence of these ceramics at the site invites the question, as

it has at other Toyah phase sites, of whether these vessels

were made by local groups in imitation of Caddo vessels or

whether they are genuine Caddo vessels. Petrographic and

instrumental neutron activation analyses of Caddo ceramics

recovered from several sites at Fort Hood and in surrounding

counties of Central Texas indicated they had indeed originated

in northeast Texas (Perttula et al. 2003). It is proposed that

similar analyses be performed on selected sherds from site

41HM51 and the data compared with those obtained by

Perttula et al. (2003).

The obsidian from site 41HM51 macroscopically

appears to have originated from the Jemez Mountains of

New Mexico, some 850 km to the northwest. While consider-

ably more attention has been paid to the relationship between

Toyah peoples and the Caddos through the study of pottery,

the relationship between Toyah peoples and groups to their

west has gone largely unexplored. Trace element analysis

(e.g., x-ray florescence) performed on select pieces of obsidian

from site 41HM51 to establish their origin may illuminate

this issue and the mechanisms of exchange and group mobility.

Syntheses (e.g., Kelley 1986; Kenmotsu 2001; Wade

2003; Hickerson 1994) of primary ethnohistorical sources

(mainly accounts of early Spanish exploration) that describe

protohistoric groups occupying the classic Toyah area (and

possibly responsible for the Toyah archeological record) can

be used to provide an understanding of these trade and social

relationships and their significance for the occupants of site

41HM51, as well as for other Toyah groups engaged in similar

activities.

ReferencesBroehm, Cory J., Karl W. Kibler, and E. Frances Gadus

2004 Interim Report on Survey and Test Excavations at 41HM46

and 41HM51, Hamilton County, Texas. Submitted to the

Archeological Studies Program, Environmental Affairs Divi-

sion of the Texas Department of Transportation. Prewitt and

Associates, Inc., Austin.

Hickerson, Nancy Parrott

1994 The Jumanos: Hunters and Traders of the South Plains. Univer-

sity of Texas Press, Austin.

Johnson, LeRoy

1994 The Life and Times of Toyah-Culture Folk as Seen from theBuckhollow Encampment, Site 41KM16, Kimble County,

Texas. Office of the State Archeologist Report 38, Texas

Historical Commission and Texas Department of Transporta-

tion, Austin.

Kelley, J. Charles

1986 Jumano and Patarabueye: Relations at La Junta de los Rios.Anthropological Papers No. 77, Museum of Anthropology,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Kenmotsu, Nancy Adele

2001 Seeking Friends, Avoiding Enemies: The Jumano Response to

Colonization, A.D. 1580–1750. Bulletin of the Texas Archeo-logical Society 72:23–43.

Kibler, Karl W.

2003 Archeological Survey on CR 294 at the Leon River, HamiltonCounty, Texas. Letter Report No. 607, Prewitt and Associates,

Inc., Austin.

Mehalchick, Gemma, Karl Kleinbach, Douglas K. Boyd, Steve A.

Tomka, and Karl Kibler

1999 National Register Testing of 19 Prehistoric Archaeological Sitesat Fort Hood, Texas: The 1995 Season. Archaeological

Resource Management Series, Research Report No. 37. United

States Army, Fort Hood, Texas.

Nordt, Lee C.

1992 Archaeological Geology of the Fort Hood Military Reservation,Fort Hood, Texas. Archaeological Resource Management

Series, Research Report No. 25. United States Army, Fort

Hood, Texas.

Perttula, Timothy K., Sergio A. Iruegas, and Hector Neff

2003 Caddoan Pottery in Central Texas: Geochemical Analysesof Ceramics From Fort Hood and Vicinity. Research Report

No. 51, Archaeological Resource Management Series, United

States Army, Fort Hood, Texas.

Quigg, J. Michael, and Jay Peck

1995 The Rush Site (41TG346): A Stratified Late Prehistoric Localein Tom Green County, Texas. Technical Report No. 816C,

Mariah Associates, Inc., Austin.

Suhm, Dee Ann, and Edward B. Jelks

1962 Handbook of Texas Archeology. The Texas Archeological Soci-

ety Special Publication Number One and The Texas Memorial

Museum Bulletin Number Four, Austin.

Wade, Mariah F.

2003 The Native Americans of the Texas Edwards Plateau, 1582–1799. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Project Sponsor: Texas Department of Transportation

Contracting Archeologists: Prewitt and Associates, Inc.

Principal Investigator: Karl Kibler

Project Archeologist: Cory Broehm

22 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

The Texas Archeological and Historic Sites Atlases are online

resources that contain much of the information previously

available only by visiting the Texas Archeological Research

Laboratory (TARL) at the University of Texas or the Texas

Historical Commission offices, both in Austin. The two

atlases, products of a three-year project begun in 1995, were

redesigned for the first time in March 2005. We hope users

will find information faster in the redesigned Atlases and have

a more enjoyable experience doing it.

Since their debut in 1996, the Archeological and

Historic Sites Atlases have grown to comprise more than:

• 115,000 potentially historic buildings

• 64,000 archeological site locations

• 60,000 archeological site forms

• 12,000 historical markers

• 9,000 cemeteries

• 4,000 historic and present-day sawmills

• 2,800 National Register sites

• 800 historic county courthouses

• 500 museums

• 231 military sites

Version 2 puts all this information within easy reach.

We incorporated many of the elements users requested in a

2004 survey. One common suggestion was to configure the

database so users could search for a specific address — that

is now possible in the new version. We also expanded the

C U R R E N T N E W S A N D E V E N T S

CURRENT NEWS AND EVENTS / THC ATLAS • 23

The new look of the Texas Historic Sites Atlas, featuring expanded search capabilities and improved map functions.

THC Online Atlases Get Faceliftby David Hendler

24 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

keyword search on the Historic Sites Atlas (and added it to

the Archeological Atlas) to allow the location of information

within user-defined sets of data. The Atlas homepage now has

a Quick Search box that works like a common search engine.

All the pages containing forms now have a Print button to

make printing easier.

Another new feature is the Report Error button on all

forms, which can be used to log data discrepancies. And on

the Archeological Atlas, we integrated the Trinomial Search

with the Abstracts: users can click any trinomial in an Abstract

to bring up information about the site.

The most obvious changes, however, were made to

the mapping application. With our new maps, all users will

get the same, high-grade functionality with no special plug-in

required. Maps are much larger now and contain more infor-

mation. Version 1 Atlases kept maps at a 400 x 400 pixel size;

Version 2 maps can be any size the user chooses — small

enough to stay within the Atlas window, or, when opened in

a separate window, as large as the monitor allows. Users can

also determine which types of objects appear on maps by

selecting from a simple menu.

Scrolling and moving around in the maps is easier in

Version 2. In Version 1, users had to click arrows and wait for

the entire map to reload. In the new version, a pan tool

moves the map in any direction, and new parts of the map

seamlessly appear while old areas scroll off-screen. Zooming

is also easier in Version 2: with the Zoom In/Out tools, users

select the focus area. They can also draw shapes on maps and

measure distances between objects of interest, as well as set

the units of measurement. Plus, the new map-printing function

allows users to print maps containing the shapes they drew.

Visit the redesigned Texas Historic Sites Atlas at

http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us.

David Hendler is a web developer and technical writer for theTexas Archeological and Historic Sites Atlases.

La Belle BookPublished byTexas A&M PressThe new book by James E. Bruseth and Toni S. Turner,

From a Watery Grave: The Discovery and Excavationof La Salle’s Shipwreck La Belle, is now available from

Texas A&M University Press. Written with both the

general public and professional archeologists in mind,

the volume is lavishly illustrated with more than 140

photos, drawings, and maps, most in color. Noted

historian T.R. Fehrenbach contributed the Foreword.

The authors recount the story of how the Belle ended

up at the bottom of Matagorda Bay — tracing French

explorer La Salle’s history and that of the two imperial

powers competing for land in the New World — and

describe the Texas Historical Commission’s discovery

and excavation of the shipwreck 300 years later.

Senior author Bruseth directed the remarkable project.

Archeologists will be especially interested in the

detailed descriptions and photographs of some of the

one million artifacts recovered from the wreck and

conserved at the Conservation Research Laboratory at

Texas A&M University.

MARINE ARCHEOLOGY / STEWARD PROFILE • 25

Most archeological stewards concentrate on the region of

Texas in which they live. Not so the marine stewards. Their

domain encompasses the Gulf of Mexico to more than 10

miles offshore, and all the bays, rivers, and bayous in the state.

A historic wreck can lie hidden in virtually any natural

body of water in Texas, said State Marine Archeologist Steve

Hoyt, because ferries once transported travelers across

even small streams. So whether marine stewards live on the

coast or deep in the interior of Texas, they often drive great

distances to assist Hoyt in archeological investigations.

Two of the seven marine stewards, John Luce and

Doug Nowell, live in the West Texas city of San Angelo, but

they have participated in Texas Historical Commission (THC)

projects in Galveston, on the Rio Grande, and in far North-

east Texas, among other locations. “Both have many years of

experience as divers in vastly more beautiful seas than are

found in Texas,” Hoyt said of Luce and Nowell, “but they are

still eager to get into our murky waters when the opportunity

to investigate a shipwreck presents itself.”

Andy Hall, a resident of Galveston, is generally

nearer the action, but he also travels to help out on inland

projects. Although Hall became a diver more recently than

Luce and Nowell, he is always ready to gear up, even in the

worst conditions. On land, he is an experienced researcher

and writer who has presented numerous scholarly papers at

archeological conferences. “Being a marine steward gives me

the opportunity to deal with Texas history in a real, hands-on

way,” Hall said. “It allows me to do research and fieldwork in

an area — Texas maritime history — that is not widely known

or appreciated by the general public.”

An avid interest in Texas history also motivates Luce

and Nowell, partly because of their deep roots in the Lone

Star State. “My family on both sides came to Texas in the

early 1840s,” Luce said. “They were very active in Central

and North Texas before moving to West Texas in the 1890s

and 1900s.” Nowell’s ancestors settled in the state after the

Civil War.

But it was an event that took place long before the

1800s that originally brought Luce, Nowell, and Hall to the

THC. All three helped THC archeologists recover French

explorer La Salle’s ship the Belle from Matagorda Bay, where

it sank in 1686. The THC, with the help of the capable

marine stewards, is now searching for other historic wrecks

in Texas waters. According to Hall, “We have a tremendous

marine heritage that’s still out there, waiting to be found

and recorded.”

Steward Profile

Have Wetsuit, Will TravelMarine Stewards John Luce, Doug Nowell, and Andy Hall

John Luce Doug Nowell Andy Hall

M A R I N E A R C H E O L O G Y

26 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

Trans-Pecos Region

Seminole Canyon Rock Art Project CompletedThe Texas Preservation Trust Fund grant project, “Assessment and

Management Plan for the Rock Imagery Sites of Seminole Canyon

State Park and Historic Site,” is complete and reports have been

submitted to the Texas Historical Commission (THC). This project

is important to the preservation and protection of the irreplaceable

rock art of the lower Pecos, which includes the oldest dated rock art

in North America.

Steward ActivitiesJack Skiles monitored eight sites, presented workshops attended by

more than 57 participants, and consulted with two local landowners.

He has also rebuilt his father’s blacksmith shop, which contains an

old forge and hand-cranked drill. Several groups — including an

TRANS-PECOS • DEBRA BEENE

R E G I O N A L A N D S T E W A R D N E W S

REGIONAL AND STEWARD NEWS • 27

anthropologist and her family from Matera, Italy, students attending

Texas Tech University’s spring break workshop headed up by Elton

Prewitt, and local students — visited Skiles’ museum to learn about

lower Pecos history and prehistory. And as always, Skiles continues

his active stewardship of the significant archeological sites on his

property.

Speaking of Skiles’ archeological sites — Southern

Methodist University’s Dr. Dave Meltzer will soon return to research

Eagle Nest Canyon’s topography at the time of the earliest bison dri-

ves approximately 11,7000 years ago. Bonfire Shelter, in Eagle Nest

Canyon, is the location of the earliest and southernmost known

bison jump in North America.

S. Evans Turpin worked on the Bill Bissell sites in Pecos and

Crockett counties in conjunction with the staff of the Museum of the

Southwest in Midland. They are now planning to present a paper

about the sites at the meeting of the Southwest Federation of Arche-

ological Societies in San Angelo this spring. He also attended the

THC Mountain/Pecos Regional Workshop in September, where he

participated in many discussions regarding ongoing regional research.

Turpin later worked with the Iraan Archeological Society conducting

metal-detector surveys in the Iraan area in an attempt to locate the

Chihuahua Trail, Southern Military Road, and Old Stage Coach

routes through northeast Pecos County. In addition, Turpin visited

10 rock art sites in western Arizona, southern Nevada, and southern

California, as well as six mound sites in the Upper Mississippi River

drainage area of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Claude Hudspeth joined State Representative Scott Camp-

bell at a B-36 crash site in Glasscock County. Ranch Magazine, which

Representative Campbell owns and publishes, ran an article about

the trip and 1955 crash on the cover of a recent issue. Although

this event so long ago may not seem big news in 2005, the B-36 —

once known as President Harry Truman’s “Big Stick” — was the

largest aircraft flying at the time. All 15 people on board were

killed in the crash. Hudspeth will return to officially record the

archeological site, and interest has been expressed in erecting a

historical marker there.

Hudspeth worked at numerous sites during the past few

months, including a bedrock mortar site on the Concho River, where

he collected the information necessary to record it; he is awaiting the

owner’s permission to do so. In October, he worked at Paint Rock at

the request of landowner Fred Campbell. Hudspeth located the site

where the old Military Road crossed the Concho River and used a

metal detector to search for two other “dugout” locations, but recov-

ered only scrap metal. He joined Dan Potter, THC North and

Central Texas regional archeologist, in a magnetometer survey at

Camp Wood. They searched for graves associated with a cemetery

predating the town site; due to negative results they now plan to

perform a radar search. In November, Hudspeth accompanied the

Concho Valley Archeological Society (CVAS) on a field trip to the

Guadalupe Mountains National Park. They spent a couple of days

locating the old Butterfield Trail, which passed through the park.

Hudspeth attended several archeological events in the

region, including the Center for Big Bend Studies Conference in

Alpine and the CVAS’s annual archeology fair, this year held in

conjunction with Sheep Heritage Day. More than 4,000 people

participated in that event. Finally, Hudspeth helped archeological

steward Reeda Peel record a petroglyph site near Balmorhea.

Mountain / Pecos & Plains Regions

Steward ActivitiesDuring this reporting period stewards in the Plains and Mountain/

Pecos regions contributed approximately 950 hours toward steward

activities. Stewards distributed more than 440 pieces of educational

materials and gave presentations to more than 1,000 people. They

also assisted 130 landowners, other individuals, and agencies. They

recorded 13 new sites and monitored or investigated 38 other sites.

Several stewards have been involved in special or ongoing

projects. Alvin Lynn continues to work on locating and mapping the

historic trails in the Panhandle. Most recently he has been trying to

identify the trail used by Kit Carson in 1864 when Carson led some

400 California and New Mexico volunteer troops into the Panhandle

to attack the Kiowa and Comanche Indians at Adobe Walls on the

Canadian River. Lynn has been successful in identifying several of

Carson’s camps as well as the Kiowa village that Carson attacked

and burned as he was retreating from Adobe Walls.

Enrique Madrid has been busy assisting a Hollywood film

crew to avert impacting several important archeological sites in

Presidio County during filming. From September through November,

Madrid assisted the crew with casting and casting locations and con-

tacting landowners in the Polvo area. Also in November, Madrid

traveled to Austin to participate in a cultural diversity meeting and

workshop sponsored by the Texas Historical Commission (THC).

Despite a serious injury and subsequent surgery on his left

shoulder, Rolla Shaller still managed to participate in several steward

activities. In September, Shaller accompanied Scott Brosowske

(a doctoral candidate at the University of Oklahoma) and fellow

stewards Joe Rogers and Alvin Lynn on a field trip to inspect several

sites along Tierra Blanca Creek and Garcia Lake in western Deaf

Smith County. In October, Shaller assisted the Panhandle Archeological

Society with activities at the Fannin Middle School History Fair in

Amarillo. At the fair, Shaller demonstrated how corn was ground

using a mano and metate. (Maybe that is how he injured his shoulder!)

Doug Wilkens worked with several volunteers under the

direction of Doug Boyd at the M-Cross Ranch in Roberts County to

conduct test excavations of a probable prehistoric house structure.

The probable structure had been partially exposed by erosion and

was found by Wilkens and landowner John Erickson. Wilkens also

assisted Scott Brosowske with a survey along Northrup Creek in

Ochiltree County.

REGIONS 1 & 2 • BRETT CRUSE

28 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

Forts/Hill Country& Lakes/Brazos Regions

Steward ActivitiesDel Barnett (Mills County) continues his involvement in planning

for an archeological display to be associated with the Mills County

Museum in Goldthwaite. Barnett recently met with the museum

board and THC staffers Dan Potter and Peter Ketter in Goldthwaite.

Jay Blaine (Collin County), in his usual fashion, continues to

examine muskets, nails, gunflints, and all things ancient and metallic.

He recently participated in an exploratory examination of the Joe

Benton Collection, a remarkable assemblage of Wichita and other

materials from the Montague County area.

Dan Brown (Tom Green County) gave stewardship assistance

in his area 13 times, and David Calame (Medina County) reports

10 new sites recorded during this period. Adrianne Mraz (TARL)

notes that Calame’s site record forms are among the best she has seen(avocational or professional) over the past year. Calame also had a

chance to view four artifact collections, and he provided stewardship

assistance 16 times. He noted that he would appreciate it if regional

archeologists would let him know when anything comes up in his area.

Kay Clarke (Williamson County) provided several archeo-

logical programs to more than 120 folks in the Liberty Hill area,

monitored three archeological sites, and provided TASN assistance

10 times. José Contreras (Kendall County) reports a new site recorded

in his area and assistance to eight landowners and other individuals.

Bryan Jameson (Tarrant County) reports 150 hours of volunteer

time and assistance to 13 landowners, citizens, or organizations.

Jameson recently coauthored a paper with State Archeologist Patricia

Mercado-Allinger on the stewardship network, which was presented

at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in

Salt Lake City.

Rick Jarnagin (Williamson County) has been documenting

recent damage to a historic cemetery in Round Rock and passing on

the information to local law enforcement officials and the THC’s

Gerron Hite.

Paul and Jan Lorrain (Dallas County) have contributed

about 100 hours to the TASN, including site monitoring and assis-

tance to individuals, agencies, or organizations. Nick Morgan (Bastrop

County) reports that he assisted a local landowner and attended the

ceramics academy sponsored by the TAS. Laurie Moseley (Parker

County) reports that he investigated 10 sites and presented five talks

or workshops, and that he continues to write his weekly newspaper

column on western history and archeology. Glynn Osburn (Tarrant

County) was one of the stewards assisting THC and Texas Tech

University staff in remote-sensing research at the old presidio near

Menard. Osburn also gave three presentations to a combined audi-

ence of 200 students.

Ona B. Reed (Cooke County) reports a couple of archeo-

logical sites monitored in her area and stewardship assistance to five

individuals or groups. Reed assisted in rock art recording near Bal-

morhea and worked with the Tarrant County Archeological Society

at the Sprague site. She recently inquired whether there was a good

piece of THC literature about the TASN — and there is. One of the

insert brochures in our literature packet is about the stewardship

network and can be ordered from Archeology Division office man-

ager Donna McCarver at 512-463-6090, or through your regional

archeologist. May and Jim Schmidt (Travis County) have been

volunteering substantial hours to TAS Red River Field School lab

work, but also have had the time to respond to requests from

landowners and other folks needing stewardship assistance.

Frank Sprague (Hamilton County) is in some demand as

a local speaker on Hamilton County history and prehistory. With the

Tarrant County Archeological Society, Sprague is continuing a testing

program at an important site on his property adjoining the Leon

River. Alice Stultz (Tom Green County) reports that she has assisted

10 landowners and others and has given a couple of public programs

in the San Angelo area. Stultz also reports a newly recorded site.

Art Tawater (Parker County) assisted John Arn at the Janee site,

(41MN33) in Menard County, and spent a good deal of his spare

time completing his faunal reports of materials recovered from the

Techado Springs Pueblo.

Bill Young (Navarro County) monitored 27 sites in his area.

He has been spending most of his available time documenting historic

cemeteries in his county. Kay and Woody Woodward (Kerr County),

the dynamic duo in the Texas Hill Country, report 10 newly recorded

sites. Considering the rapid growth and development of the Hill

Country, this is an excellent contribution. They also gave public pre-

sentations to more than 600 Hill Country residents and embarked on

a salvage excavation at 41KR626, a looted site on private land. Woody

noted that with climbing prices, gasoline purchases are becoming a

substantial charitable gift from stewards to the TASN program.

Forest & Independence/Tropical Regions

Plantation Survey Underway in Brazoria CountyIn an effort to record the structural remains of some 45 known ante-

bellum plantation sites in Brazoria County before many are lost for-

ever, the THC has teamed with the Brazosport Archeological Society,

the Lake Jackson Historical Museum, and the Brazoria County

Historical Museum to map and record visible architectural remains

and to enhance this information with archival data pertaining to the

plantations. Many of these sites are located on private property, and

the success of the project will depend heavily upon the interest and

cooperation of individual landowners in Brazoria County.

To date the project has mapped two of the known sites:

the Lake Jackson Plantation owned by the Lake Jackson Historical

Museum (see map on page 29), and the Bryan Home site owned by the

REGIONS 3 & 4 • DAN POTTER

REGIONS 5 & 6 • JEFF DURST

REGIONAL AND STEWARD NEWS • 27

Nature Conservancy. Both owners graciously allowed the project team

access to the sites for mapping. The project is being conducted with

the assistance of several THC stewards: Johnney and Sandra Pollan,

Dick Gregg, Beverly Mendenhall, and Sandy Rogers, with additional

assistance from members of the Brazosport Archaeological Society.

As the cool winter months give way to the steamy summer

days when snakes become a problem in the area, the project will

move indoors to conduct archival research at the Brazoria County

Historical Museum. This museum, located in the old county

courthouse in Angleton, houses many of the early county records

pertaining to plantation life throughout most of the 19th and

early-20th centuries.

At the culmination of the project we hope to have trained

a large team of field surveyors and mappers as well as a team of

archivists who can carry on this type of research in the surrounding

counties.

Steward ActivitiesPat and Beth Aucoin (Harris County) have been extremely busy

during the past few months contributing many hours to the San

Felipe de Austin Archeological Project directed by Marianne Marek.

They have also logged many hours and miles assisting with the

Piney Woods Archeology Fair and the San Jacinto Fall Festival.

Bill Birmingham (Victoria County) remains busy recording

numerous archeological collections, including his own, for donation

to the Museum of the Coastal Bend in Victoria. Birmingham has also

spent many hours over the past quarter working at the McNeill-Gon-

zales Ranch site (41VT141) a large habitation and cemetery site

covering most of the time of human habitation in the Texas Gulf

Coast Plain. Congratulations to Birmingham also for being elected

to the Board of Directors of the Museum of the Coastal Bend.

Jimmy Bluhm (Victoria County) has been occupied with

excavations at the McNeill-Gonzales Ranch site and continues to be

the driving force behind the salvage effort at the site.

Pat Braun (Aransas County), assisted by several other

stewards, conducted salvage excavations site 41AS96, where human

remains were eroding out onto the beach and being washed into the

bay. She also remains busy with the McNeill-Gonzales Ranch site

and volunteering at the Museum of the Coastal Bend.

Julian Cranfill (Bowie County) is very active in the repair

and reconstruction of pottery and also participated in the Texarkana

Archeology Fair held in October.

Robert Crosser (Fort Bend County) is one of the new stew-

ards instated in 2004. Crosser hit the ground running by assisting

landowners in Fort Bend County in their search for the cabin of

Thomas Barnett, which was burned by the advancing Mexican Army

in 1836. Barnett and his wife Nancy Spencer Barnett were part of

Stephen F. Austin’s original 300 colonists. Crosser also participated

in the excavations at San Felipe de Austin and helped with excavations

at the purported site of Jean Lafitte’s Maison Rouge on Galveston

Island.

Bob Everett (Guadalupe County) promoted Texas Arche-

ology Month by providing a special month-long archeological exhibit

at the Heritage Museum in Seguin and at the Guadalupe County

Public Library in Seguin.

Patsy Goebel (DeWitt County) has had her hands full lately

serving as chair of the DeWitt County Historical Museum. She is

currently working on a Civil War exhibit that will run from May

through December of 2005.

Richard Gregg (Harris County) aided Marianne Marek with

excavations at San Felipe de Austin and participated in numerous

other projects in and around Harris County.

Patti Haskins (Gregg County) is always very active in

northeast Texas. She visited with several landowners and monitored

several sites in her region. Haskins was also very active in the

preparations for the Texas Archeological Society’s Archeology 101

Academy in Tyler.

Joe Hudgins (Wharton County) was another of the many

stewards who assisted Marianne Marek with excavations at San

Felipe de Austin. He also recorded a new site and examined a collec-

tion in Austin County.

Don Keyes, Jr. (Montgomery County) participated in the

Sam Houston Archeology Fair and also helped out at one mock dig

at San Felipe de Austin and another at the San Jacinto Battlefield.

Johnney Pollan (Brazoria County) has been very active with

the plantation survey, which will find, map, and record some 45 or

more antebellum plantations in Brazoria County.

Sandra Pollan (Brazoria County) has been actively indexing

the Brazoria County District Court Records from the 19th century,

which are housed at the Brazoria County Historical Museum. She

also serves as secretary of the Brazoria County Historical Commission.

Richard Proctor (Lamar County) is another new steward

who joined the TASN in 2004. He is currently serving as president

Map produced from recent work at the Lake Jackson Plantation.

REGIONAL AND STEWARD NEWS • 29

30 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

of the recently formed Valley of the Caddo Archeological Society and

has been extremely busy making preparations for the upcoming TAS

field school — he will be the camp boss. Additionally, the Valley of

the Caddo Archeological Society hosted the 2005 East Texas Archeo-

logical Conference in Paris, Texas. Proctor is a highly energetic

and enthusiastic individual and is obviously committed to making

a significant contribution to Texas archeology.

Arnulfo (Fito) Santos, Jr. (Webb County) has been active

lately south of the border recording rock art sites near the town of

Bustamante, Nuevo León (see report by Santos at end of this section).

A feature story in the Laredo Morning Times, also by Santos, details

the incredible rock art found in the Chihuahuan Desert south of

Laredo.

Tom Speir (Harrison County) is working on a report of his

recent investigations at the old town site of Elysian Fields in north-

east Texas.

Mark Walters (Smith County) helped conduct a field school

recently in Texarkana. Known as the Gateway Project, the field

school aims to record the archeological remains of an early hotel that

once graced the streets of downtown Texarkana. Walters also recently

published an article in an archeology journal about the Browning

site (41SM195) and has submitted an article for publication in the

Caddoan Archeology Journal. Additionally, Walters recorded an

amazing 30 sites in Smith County.

I must say that the stewards in Regions 5 and 6 have been

incredibly busy the past quarter. It is difficult to list all stewards and

their marvelous accomplishments, but the staff at the THC, especially

me, salute each and every one of you and implore you to keep up

the great work.

A Mystery of theChihuahuan DesertA Report by TASN Member Arnulfo Santos, Jr.

Were it not for the abundance of prehistoric petroglyphs and pic-

tographs on its rocky surfaces, Cerro de Chiquihuitillos would likely

go unnoticed. Ancient artisans used the upper vertical area of the

mesa, which locals call the relize, as a canvas for their native pigments,

and chiseled petroglyphs into the boulders below.

About 10 miles southwest of Bustamante, in Nuevo León,

Mexico, Cerro de Chiquihuitillos is a small mesa of 10–15 acres that

rises about 200 feet above the desert floor. A nearby meandering dry

creek stands ready to route the infrequent rainwater around the

mesa. This mesa, like the flat, parched country surrounding it, bristles

with spiny desert plants that have an affinity for hikers’ unprotected

ankles, hands, and arms. But the panoramic view of North America’s

largest desert and the intriguing pictographs at the top more than

compensate for any discomfort.

A Startling SuggestionFor years my trusted colleague Roberto Cavasos had insisted that

I make the two-and-a-half-hour car trip from Laredo to Cerro de

Chiquihuitillos to see the rock art. Cavasos said his friend Alejandro

(Alex) Figueroa had an unusual interpretation of specific rock art

symbols found in the area.

The defining characteristic of the Chiquihuitillos style,

according to Rock Art of the Chihuahuan Desert Borderland (1998)

is the boxing of often fine-line geometrics in rectangular, sub-rec-

tangular, oval, trapezoidal, and hexagonal outlines. The mesa’s

pictographs include a great variety of shapes, patterns and motifs,

but most are connected red geometrical shapes.

Dr. Carolyn E. Boyd, Dr. Solveig Turpin, and other respected

researchers interpret rock art paintings as being mostly ritualistic in

nature. In her recent book, Rock Art of the Lower Pecos (2003), Boyd

suggests that by chanting, dancing, drumming, and possibly ingesting

certain native plants — especially peyote, a hallucinogenic cactus

common to the area — the artists achieved altered states of con-

sciousness. She cites modern medical experiments in which subjects

saw certain abstract figures and animal forms after the administration

of hallucinogenic drugs. With increased dosages, subjects often felt

they had actually become animals. Nevertheless, the precise meaning

of the rock art continues to elude even the most serious efforts at

interpretation.

Alex Figueroa, however, who would accompany us on the

journey to the mesa, has an explanation of the rock art that is miles

— no, light years — apart from any to be found in the archeological

literature. He believes that the Chiquihuitillos pictographs record

early UFO sightings.

I decided to make the trip.

South into MexicoMy companions were Figueroa, who is an accountant when not

pursuing his UFO interests; Cavasos, a slim, 30-something computer

engineer with slicked-black hair; loan underwriter Christie Underhill;

Greg Ebe, financial officer for a land developer; Seth Avant, a

redheaded high-school teacher and former bike racer; and news

photographer Cuate Santos. The seven of us split unto two groups

and headed south into Mexico.

Just past the charming town of Bustamante, we picked up

our guide Antonio, who would direct us to the mesa. We made several

stops along the way to photograph the vivid desert scenery and adobe

ruins. Cuate took every opportunity to capture the rugged landscape,

adorned with the spiny, robust plants that made it perfectly clear we

were in the Chihuahuan desert. The flora was comparable to, yet dif-

ferent from, its Texas counterparts. The jumping cactus, or tasajillo,looked even more muscular and menacing than the Texas variety.

Arnulfo (Fito) Santos, Jr.

After about an hour of traveling west on a dirt road, we

came to a halt next to a campo (ranch camp), and out of the dust

cloud my truck stirred up appeared a tall, slender figure with

creased, sunburned skin and white beard stubble, resembling nothing

so much as an extra in a Western movie, complete with weathered,

sweat-stained palm hat and dirty red bandana — Juan Villarreal, the

ranch owner. We paid the fee of 20 pesos per person, and he pointed

a crooked finger toward the mesa a hundred yards in the distance.

The Trek up ChiquihuitillosThe loose dirt surface made the ascent quite challenging. It seemed

that for every two steps upward, I slid one downward. Furthermore,

people higher up the mesa would inadvertently loosen rocks, sending

them careening to those below. The many varieties of cacti didn’t

help either. Pained exclamations of “Ouch!” and “Ay!” rang out from

the team.

As we walked, I remembered when I led a group to Mesa de

Catujanos, which is located about 30 miles north of Chiquihuitillos

Mesa. The relize of Mesa de Catujanos was also decorated with rock

art. It occurred to me that ancient artisans might have been attracted

to mesas, and I wondered if these unique landforms held special

significance for them.

A geology professor at Southern Methodist University

explained to me that mesas form differently from mountains: a mesa

does not heave from the ground as does a mountain. Rather, it is

what remains after the surrounding earth erodes away. A mesa’s sides

were once underground, and the upper portion was a floor elevation.

This wasting away of land is an incredibly slow process, taking tens

of thousands of years.

Fiery Rings, Luces, and Otherworldly SightingsAfter an hour of doing the “two steps forward, one step back”

dance, the group finally reached the relize.

The rock art was plentiful and in good condition. I noticed

fist-sized clusters of what looked like fiery rings. These rings seem

to be exclusive to this mesa. Figueroa suggested that the concentric

circles alluded to communication between indigenous people and

extraterrestrials. Mysterious lights, or luces, are common sightings

in and around Bustamante, seeming to occur at or near Bustamante

Canyon. I myself have seen luces at nearby Mesa de Catujanos that

looked as if someone were playfully moving a flashlight against a wall.

After about an hour on the mesa we headed down. Back

in Bustamante, we stopped at one of the many panaderias for sweet

bread. I asked Dolores, who runs the bakery, if she had ever seen an

OVNI (UFO), to which she replied, “Sure, they come here to reener-

gize.” Her teenage son added eagerly that just two weeks ago he had

seen a craft in the canyon area. In Laredo later that day I discovered

that more than a few people claim to have seen UFOs near the canyon.

I’m not prepared to claim that the rock art at Cerro de

Chiquihuitillos (or anywhere else) is the result of extraterrestrial

influence — but I can say it is fascinating.

ReferencesBoyd, Carolyn E.

2003 Rock Art of the Lower Pecos. Texas A&M University Anthropology

Series no. 8, College Station, Texas.

Smith-Savage, Sheron, and Robert J. Mallouf (editors)

1998 Rock Art of the Chihuahuan Desert Borderlands. Occasional Paper no. 3,

Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas.

Ranch owner Juan Villarreal at Mesa de Chiquihuitillos, near Bustamante inNuevo León, Mexico.

The group climbs 200 feet to the top of Mesa de Chiquihuitillos.

Red rings painted on the relize of the mesa.

REGIONAL AND STEWARD NEWS •31

32 • TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • CURRENT ARCHEOLOGY IN TEXAS

The OriginalLockhartBar-B-Q Placeby Gary McKeeTHC Archeological Steward

Lockhart has long been famous for its Bar-B-Q establishments. There

is one nearby, however, that luckily has been overlooked by the public.

Lockhart lies between the Post Oak Belt of Central Texas

and the Balcones Fault Zone. These natural barriers funneled bison

during their seasonal migrations through the Lockhart prairie,

where multiple water, lithic, and cultural-material resources are in

close proximity. In the middle of the Lockhart prairie is a privately

owned parcel of land littered with choppers, “Butted Knife” bifaces,

fire-cracked rocks, and other artifacts — evidence of a cookout of

great proportion.

The following is an example of how the Texas Historical

Commission’s Texas Archeological Stewardship Network (TASN)

works with landowners to protect and investigate archeological

sites. Dan Potter, regional archeologist for North and Central Texas,

received a phone call from a citizen who was concerned about

protecting her property from developers. The land had been in the

family for generations, and she remembers her grandfather plowing

up arrowheads in a small corn patch by a creek with a perennial

spring. Potter contacted me, and I got in touch with the landowner,

Fredrika Kinnard, and arranged a site visit.

Research showed that a site and a collection of corner-tang

knives, incised bones, and many varieties of lithics had been recorded

on the adjoining property. A notation on the form stated that “the

best undisturbed area was on the other side of the fence.” The Kin-

nard property was on the other side of that fence.

The landowner and I performed a preliminary surface

inspection, which revealed plentiful choppers, possible scrapers, and

probable butchering tools. A later pedestrian survey yielded two

metates, manos, and hammerstones.

The first shovel test recovered a disc-shaped bead (material

not yet determined), large amounts of Rabdotus, fire-cracked rock,

and chert flakes. A second shovel test also produced large amounts

of Rabdotus, fire-cracked rock, and chert flakes — but nothing diag-

nostic. The third shovel test started yielding chert flakes and heavily

burned rocks, so the test was expanded to a 1 x 1 unit. Frio and

Yarbrough dart points were recovered, and small “pebbles” of ochre,

both red and yellow, appeared in the screen. The cultural debris dis-

appeared after 50 cm. We continued the shovel test down to 100 cm

below the surface, where we recovered several large concreted pieces

of chert. At this writing, another test pit next to the spring had begun

yielding temporal diagnostics, including an Ensor dart point.

The Kinnard property has a rich cultural heritage. In

addition to the prehistoric component, it contains the remains of

a log cabin that possibly dates to the 1860s. The landowner is

compiling oral histories of the people who lived in the cabin through

the many decades. We decided to put in a test pit beside the cabin

remains, and it immediately began yielding both prehistoric and

historic artifacts. The base of another log cabin, which probably

housed the plantation overseer, is also present, including hand-hewn

timbers and wooden pegs. Requests for trinomials have been filed

for these three sites, and research on the log cabins continues.

The landowner is very cooperative and eager to protect the

property, even as subdivisions spring up around it. When eminent

domain procedures allowed a sewage transport line to cut through

her land, she physically blocked the backhoes headed straight toward

the 1860s cabin and managed to convince the contractor to reroute

the line by several yards.

The TASN, Texas Archeological Society (TAS), and Caldwell

County Historical Commission are conducting the archeological work

on this site, with assistance from University of Texas at Austin students

in the Texas Historical Commission Archeology Intern Program.

During the university’s spring break, three student interns

— Alison Lawrence, Heather Smith, and Erin Powell — along with

TAS member Carolyn Skopik and archeological stewards Jim and

May Schmidt, met on a cool, rainy morning to help Dan Potter

map the site using a Total Data Station. The students were able to

use what they had been learning in class, and utilized some of the

principles of excavation by laying out a 1 x 1 unit.

Dan Potter guides, left to right, TAS member Carolyn Skopik and studentinterns Erin Powell, Heather Smith, and Alison Lawrence in the use of a TotalData Station.

Alison Lawrence, Heather Smith, Erin Powell, and Carolyn Skopik begin toexcavate a unit at the Lockhart site.

LOOKING AHEAD • 33

L O O K I N G A H E A D

MAY 25 – 30, 2005

Annual Conference of the American Rock Art Research Association.

Reno/Sparks, Nevada. For more information, call 888/668-0052 or

visit www.arara.org.

JUNE 2 – 5, 2005

34th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial Archeology.

This conference is held in cities that have a significant legacy of

industrial activity. Central to these gatherings are special tours of

contemporary and historic industrial sites and processes. Milwaukee,

Wisconsin. www.siahq.org

JUNE 11 – 18, 2005

Texas Archeological Society Field School. To be held at the Gene

Stallings Ranch in Lamar County. Field-school participants may

choose to excavate, survey, or perform archeological lab work.

Excavation will concentrate on a Fourche Maline site, where arche-

ologists expect to find evidence of houses. The Fourche Maline

culture is thought to have existed between 1000 B.C. and A.D. 800.

www.txarch.org

AUGUST 31, 2005

Texas Historical Commission Regional Preservation Conference,

Forts/Hill Country Region. Kerrville. Call 512/463-6100 or visit

www.thc.state.tx.us.

SEPTEMBER 14 – 15, 2005

Texas Historical Commission Regional Preservation Conference,

Mountain/Pecos Region. Odessa. Call 512/463-6100 or visit

www.thc.state.tx.us.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2005

Texas Historical Commission Regional Preservation Conference, Forest

Region. Beaumont. Call 512/463-6100 or visit www.thc.state.tx.us.

OCTOBER 2005

Texas Archeology Month. Month-long celebration of Texas archeology

with numerous events and activities across the state. Co-sponsored

by the Texas Historical Commission, the Texas Archeological Society,

and the Council of Texas Archeologists. For more information, call

512/463-6096, email molly.gardner@thc.state.tx.us, or visit

www.thc.state.tx.us.

OCTOBER 14, 2005

Texas Historical Commission Regional Preservation Conference,

Lakes/Brazos Region. Waxahachie. Call 512/463-6100 or visit

www.thc.state.tx.us.

OCTOBER 28 – 30, 2005

76th Annual Texas Archeological Society Meeting. This year’s meet-

ing will take place in Austin at the Airport Hilton. www.txarch.org

NOVEMBER 9 – 10, 2005

Texas Historical Commission Regional Preservation Conference,

Plains Region. Plainview. Call 512/463-6100 or visit

www.thc.state.tx.us.

NOVEMBER 9 – 11, 2005

American Cultural Resources Association 10th Anniversary Confer-

ence. To be held at the historic Hotel Monaco, Washington D.C.

www.acra-crm.org

NOVEMBER 17, 2005

Texas Historical Commission Regional Preservation Conference,

Independence/Tropical Region. Laredo. Call 512/463-6100 or visit

www.thc.state.tx.us.

Archeological investigations conducted along

the middle Red River during the 1991 Texas

Archeological Society annual field school included

excavation of a suspected salt-making locale near

Caddo village sites. The evidence, especially

characteristics of the ceramics collection and the

presence of ephemeral hearths, suggests that

prehistoric Caddos — probably a small family

group — did indeed produce salt at the Salt

Well Slough site. Texas Historical Commission

Archeological Reports 4. Includes 34 figures,

32 tables, 146 pages. $15. To order, call 512/463-

6090, email donna.mccarver@thc.state.tx.us, or

fax 512/463-8927.

Coming soon from the Texas Historical Commission:

Investigations at the Salt Well Slough Site, 41RR204,a Salt-Making Site in Red River County, Texasby Nancy Adele Kenmotsu, with contributions by Timothy K. Perttula

O C T O B E R • T E X A S A R C H E O L O G Y M O N T H

T A M 2 0 0 5 I S R I G H T A R O U N D T H E C O R N E R !

Get free publicity for your organization

in the TAM 2005 Calendar of EventsNOW is the time to start planning a Texas Archeology Month (TAM) event for October 2005.

You could:

• Use your imagination and do something that no one has thought of before

• Sponsor or co-sponsor an archeology fair

• Set up an archeology booth at a heritage fair or other cultural festival

• Arrange for a speaker at your regularly scheduled archeological/historical society meeting

• Set up an exhibit of archeological or Native American collections

• Organize an activity where Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts can earn an Archeology Badge

• Arrange for a slide presentation on archeology (a brown bag lunch?)

• Schedule a lecture, or a series of lectures

• Give a tour of an archeological site or museum

• Arrange a group bus trip to one of the major events in places like Austin, Del Rio, El Paso,Farmers Branch, Houston, Lubbock, San Antonio, Texarkana or Victoria

• Sponsor a workshop

Your free listing in the TAM 2005 Calendar of Events booklet depends on three things: (1) sponsoring an event; (2) filling out anevent form; and (3) returning the form by July 1, 2005. Remember that only events open to the public can be included in theCalendar. Complete the form fully to ensure that your entry is accurate and informative. If you have a pamphlet that describesyour museum or organization, attach a copy to the form. The printed TAM 2005 Calendar of Events booklets will be distributedstatewide, and the list of events will be posted on the Texas Historical Commission web site, so don’t miss this opportunity topublicize your organization’s activities.

LOOKING FOR A BRIGHT IDEA?

The Texas Historical Commission and the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory compiled a manual entitled How To Plan andManage an Archeology Fair. It includes ideas for activities and demonstrations that work for all kinds of TAM events, from thesmallest to the grandest. To request a free copy, call Donna McCarver at 512/463-6090; fax 512/463-8927; email donna.mccarver@thc.state.tx.us; or write the address below.

NEED HELP OR MORE INFORMATION?

Write TAM, Archeology Division, Texas Historical Commission (address below); call 512/463-6096; fax 512/463-8927; oremail molly.gardner@thc.state.tx.us.

Texas Archeology Month is coordinated by the Texas Historical Commission and co-sponsored by theTexas Archeological Society and the Council of Texas Archeologists

www.thc.state.tx.us

TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION

TAM, Archeology DivisionTexas Historical CommissionP.O. Box 12276Austin, TX 78711-2276

O C T O B E R • T E X A S A R C H E O L O G Y M O N T H

T A M E V E N T F O R M • 2 0 0 5

EVENT TITLE: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Event description: Be as specific as possible and give details. Provide descriptions of activities and presenters, topics of lecturesand demonstrations and any other interesting details that will encourage the public to attend. Attach separate sheet if necessary.

EVENT DATE(S): ___________________________________ EVENT HOURS: ________________________ ADMISSION FEES: __________________

Is event open to general public? (a requirement for Calendar listing) _____________________________________________________

Event location (include name of place where event will be held, such as Blank County Museum):

NAME OF PLACE: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STREET ADDRESS (INCLUDE DIRECTIONS IF NECESSARY): _______________________________________________________________________________________________

CITY: _______________________________ COUNTY: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Event sponsor(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Contact name, phone number and email address (if available) of one or two people who can be reached easily, and web addressof organization. This information may be printed in the Calendar of Events booklet and listed on the THC web site:

(1) NAME: _____________________________________________________ PHONE: _______________________________ EMAIL: ______________________________________

(2) NAME: _____________________________________________________ PHONE: _______________________________ EMAIL: ______________________________________

WEB SITE (IF ANY): ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Person, organization and address where main event sponsor can be reached by mail:

NAME ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ORGANIZATION _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MAILING ADDRESS ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CITY _____________________________________________________ STATE _______________________________ ZIP _____________________________________________

Number of TAM 2005 Calendar of Events booklets you request for distribution: ____ NONE ____ 25-50 ____ 50-100 ____ 100-200 ____ 200+

Complete one form for each event and return by July 1, 2005, or email the required information by the same date. For additionalinformation, email Molly Gardner at the address below or call 512/463-9505.

We welcome color photos of TAM 2004 events for possible publication in the TAM 2005 Calendar of Events booklet. We also can requestpermission to print photos from local newspapers if you provide a news clipping.

www.thc.state.tx.us

TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION

SEND FORMS TO: TAM, Archeology DivisionTexas Historical CommissionP.O. Box 12276, Austin, TX 78711-2276Fax: 512/463-8927

FOR MOREINFORMATION: 512/463-9505

Email: molly.gardner@thc.state.tx.us.

Current Archeology in Texas Staff

Dr. James E. Bruseth Director, Archeology Division

Patricia A. Mercado-Allinger State Archeologist

Molly Gardner Editor

Bill Martin, Debra Beene, Brett

Cruse, Jeff Durst, and Dan Potter Contributing Editors

Roland Pantermuehl Graphic Designer

Donna McCarver Circulation Manager

Current Archeology in Texas is published semiannually by the

Texas Historical Commission (THC). Address correspondence

to Editor, Current Archeology in Texas, Archeology Division, P.O.

Box 12276, Austin, TX 78711-2276; fax 512/463-8927; or email

molly.gardner@thc.state.tx.us. Portions of the newsletter (not

including Current Research items) that are not copyrighted or

reprinted from other sources may be reprinted without permission.

For information about alternate formats of this publication,

contact the THC at 512/463-6096.

Jean Ann Ables-Flatt

Thomas E. Alexander

Gail Loving Barnes

Jane Cook Barnhill

Bob Bowman

Diane DeWare Bumpas

Shirley W. Caldwell

Chris Carson

Lareatha H. Clay

Frank W. Gorman

David A. Gravelle

Albert F. (Boo) Hausser

Dr. Eileen Johnson

Dr. Mamie L. McKnight

Juan Sandoval

Frank D. Yturria

John Liston Nau, III, Chair

T. R. Fehrenbach, Emeritus

F. Lawerence Oaks, Executive Director

Texas Historical Commission

P.O. BOX 12276 • AUSTIN, TX 78711-2276

Vol. 7, No. 1

www.thc.state.tx.us

Current Archeology in Texas is financed in part by a grant from

the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. How-

ever, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views

or policies of the Department of the Interior. All of the agency’s

public programs and activities are operated free from discrimina-

tion on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, gender, or

disability. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated

against should write to Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park

Service, 1849 C St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.